"Jan. 6 was a dangerously close call"

The big deal, at the very bottom of it? Liberals mindlessly hate Trump, and he laughs at them for hating him.

Now ...

Why they hate him is mysterious to me -- what exactly did he threaten to take from them as President? Their money, freedom, or rights? No.

"Because he threatened to destroy Democrazy!!!!!" No. They hated him from the day he announced that he was running and then continuously through his largely successful administration, up ended by Covid. So January 6 is not the reason.

"Because he was anti trans!!!!" No, he wasn't.

"Because he was racist!!!!" With two black members of his cabinet? LOL.

"Because he was homophobic!!!!" LOL. He appointed a gay man to be ambassador to Germany, as I recall.

It may boil down to simple jealousy. These types also hate other business billionaires, like Bezos, Musk, and Gates. Some people just need someone to hate.

 

Investigations bring FACTS into the light of day. Investigations erase rumors and replace them with facts... no matter what the outcome.

 

The votes were certified.

Trump is spreading lies.

Those are the facts.

 

Dude literally tried to steal the election. Literally. He failed, but that is still worth criticizing.

 

SPOT ON!

 

OK. So what's the HARM in verifying this with a documented investigation? If what you say is true, an investigation will just verify it. So what's the problem?

 

There were hundreds of recounts, canvasses, etc. There were dozens of court cases. Nothing came of it. And y'boy still tried to steal the election. No, it wasn't just about an "investigation."

Is it not a problem that he tried to install himself as an unelected autocrat in violation of our Constitution?

 

Pure fiction. None of this has been proven.

 

Can you name one thing here that's false? We can start with just one if you want.

 

I do not have to prove anything false. I see nothing that is true.

 

First of all, there are procedures in place to ensure the elections are secure. The people APPOINTED BY TRUMP to oversee and report on elections called it the most secure election in the nation’s history.

Second, in order to launch an investigation, there should be some factual basis for doing so. Not speculation. Not innuendo. Not made-up crap, but some real evidence that justifies the investigation. There is none. Literally none.

Third, there have been investigations. They have not found widespread fraud.

Finally, and related to no.3, most of trump’s followers are true believers. No amount of evidence, no number of investigations will convince them that the election was free and fair. Trump has told them that the election was stolen and they will believe him, no matter what.

 

Your inability to be specific proves all we need to know. You aren't willing to discuss evidence. Your objection is purely based on emotion. The facts don't care about your feelings.

 

[

Your very biased assessment of Trump supporters simply isn't true. Calling them "true believers" and claiming that no amount of evidence and no investigation can change their mind is simply absurd. I would observe that Democrats calling the occupation of ONE BUILDING an "insurrection" is much more zealous. Anyone that has even seen "Seven Days i May" knows that a real insurrection requires taking control of communication centers, transportation hubs,military installations, financial centers and more.... not just ONE BUILDING. Calling the mob that day "armed" is more emotional bias. Five people were charged with gun offenses out of the 800. Four of the charges were dropped. One remains. ONE GUY OUT OF 800 and the left calls it an "armed mob". ONE GUY.
And the protesters are called "terrorists" by the left. Only one person was shot, and that was a conservative protester shot by a cop. Insurrection" is a crime and not one person from 6 Jan.... NOT ONE... has been charged with "insurrection. NOT ONE.
So if you are looking for "true believers"... look at the liberal left.

 

What if Aliens were real and killed everyone in D.C?
What if the ghost of George Washington scared all of the members of the House?
What if a jihadist blew up the Capitol?
What if a frog had wings?

 

What if Pence had done what Trump pressured him to do? What if Trump had been successful in what he was explicitly trying to do? Pretending that this isn't a more realistic scenario than the ones you provided is just outright dishonest. We are talking, explicitly, about what Trump was trying to do. And in the most severe of those scenarios, only one man stood in his way.

 

Then I might move there. I don't say "fly."

I'm no frog.

Not exactly.

 

Except the most contested states didn’t have dem governors or legislatures

 

It was a close call. If there were 2 guys wearing fuzzy hats with horns, they would have succeeded!

 

If Pence had done what Trump pressured him to do, it would have succeeded. That's the important part.

 

It may have delayed the inevitable and brought people from the other side wearing fuzzy hats with horns. (Okay, maybe a man bun!)

 

Meanwhile Trump tried to reverse the results of the election and, ultimately, only one man was responsible for blocking his efforts -- and the terrorist mob was calling for his murder on that that day for failing to obey those unconstitutional demands. I know you can't address those facts, but they remain facts.

 

You are arguing numbers now? THAT is exactly what Trump was trying to get done in the Congress, those states electors challenged, the Democrats did it to him, they did it to Bush twice. How come only Democrats in Congress get to challenge state electors?

There was an automatic recount. Gore's were unconstitutional, he went to court instead of asking for another recount. The court summarily dismissed his ridiculous claims of election and tabulation errors. He then tried to get SELECTIVE hand recounts. Those were no allowed under the rules of the election. He got the Dem friendly Florida Supreme Court to inject itself and change the rules of the election declaring the plenary power of the SecState to certify the election void and the selective hand recounts for which there was not even a standard to start. The Reps and Bush took it to court and up to the Supreme Court which rules the FSC had no constitutional authority to do what it did and there were no provisions in the election rules for what they ordered even after asking to explain what it did. They didn't and Gore asked them to restart the selective hand recounts. This time instead of a uniramous ruling it was split and the Chief Justice wrote the descent. So the Reps and Bush went back to the SCOTUS, they again asked the FSC what are you doing we told you you couldn't, the FSC didn't answer and the SCOTUS shut down the recounts.

Gore fought tooth and nail because he believe the election WAS BEING STOLEN.

The time limit is the safe harbor provision of federal law when the states electors have to be certified to the Congress. Gore was dragging it on and on with his attempts to steal the election and the Florida legislature had to prepare to name a slate of electors else the state would lose it's votes. They had a constitutional duty to protect against that. It boils down to you only get to vote for those electors because the state legislature says you can.

There is nothing to debunk, THAT was the plan Trump's legal team had come up with on the premise that that is what the Electoral Voting Act says can happen. And we already know members of Congress can challenge those state electors, the Dems routinely do it.

Were do you get this stuff, Trump wanted several things to occur INCLUDING recounts by Jan 6 wasn't about recounts, recounts were long gone and over. It was about getting those congress and then those four states to decertify their electors and appoint new one. Injecting the VP into it was a new and questionable angle to that law.

And AGAIN the Reps want to strike the existing vague law under which Trump attempted it and write a very clear law that explicitly states a VP is only ceremonial and not allow members of Congress to challenge those electors once certified by the state. Do you support that?

They are the ones trying to make it clear, why are the Dems opposing it?

 

Why do you assume I cannot address facts prior to asking me the question? Starting with such a fallacy says more about you than me. The truth is that this angry mob was just a bunch of unarmed, butthurt, dumba$ses having a group tantrum. While I can address any fact, I can also recognize BS that people are presenting as fact. These were not terrorists. That is a term fed to the gullible to rebleat over and over again. He lost and exhausted every trick he could muster.

The opinion that it was very close, is one I strongly disagree with. Perhaps if they had just a few more men wearing fuzzy hats!

 

Do you know the difference between something not being true and being a lie?