2024 Republican Primary

[SGR]

Yep, not to mention the fact (and I've debated this with Lisna before) that Democrats are the ones who have been cultivating doubt in our election systems since the late 90s. Even getting them to agree about something like Voter ID is like pulling teeth.  Trump just saw an opportunity after 4 years of the media accusing him of being a "fake" President to give them a taste of their own medicine, and here we are.

The U.S. has a ton of issues, but one of the easiest things to do would be to lower the bar significantly to allow 3rd party or completely independent candidates to get on the national ballots for POTUS.  Every election doesn't need to be a race to the bottom between two parties - we can let people stand or fall on their own merits.  Until this change is made though, I'd argue we don't really have an actual democracy in the truest sense of the word anyway.

Yeah, I don't understand it. I don't understand how honest Democrats could look at how they were lied to about 'Trump-Russia' collusion for years (financed by Hillary), the 'fine people on both sides' hoax, the 'drinking bleach' hoax, the Covington Kids hoax, the COVID-19 origins coverup/censorship, the intelligence operation to get social media companies to censor news about Hunter Biden's laptop, and the subsequent censorship involved with questioning the election and still believe these people are 'the good guys'; The ones 'valiantly fighting for Democracy'. 

Both parties have been corrupt and despicable for a long time, it's the whole reason why Bernie and Trump were so popular. And they won't make it easier for third party candidates to gain a footing or a voice because then they'd have to give up control. Almost everyone from each party plays for the same team, similar donors, only slightly different agendas. War is popular with both parties, for example. Let no good crisis go to waste. I'd love to see the media give attention to both Green and Libertarians. Put them all on the debate stage and let them have at it. I love America, but I think we can do better - and it starts with giving people more than a binary choice. Let people decide - based on the free marketplace of ideas who is best suited to lead this country. It's looking now like we'll have to decide between a septuagenarian and an octagenarian - we've taken a wrong turn somewhere, that's all I'm saying.

[Lisnaholic]

Thanks for your long responses, Nimbly and SGR. Unfortunately I have limited time both now and in the week ahead as I am flying to England tomorrow.
However , I have a quick answer to these two comments:

Lisna, you realize that Americans on either side of the political aisle don't like Liz Cheney, right? 

She's out and about talking to media pundits to promote her new book.

^ Yes, I'm well aware that she's not popular, but also I'm aware that being right and being popular are not the same thing. I'd put C Christie on the debate stage recently in the same "Right but not popular " category.

You know what the big takeaway for liberals and republicans should have been from the 2020 election controversy? It should have been that we in fact don't have a way to know if the election was fair or not. The election system is not completely auditable, and it's not completely transparent. If it was, there would be no room to question it. Unfortunately, liberals bury their head in the sand and say ridiculous things like: "It was the most secure election in American history", while MAGA Republicans decry that it was stolen and neither can show you the proof either way. Instead we get a bunch of useless political grandstanding and finger-pointing: "You stole the election!", "Oh yeah, well you're a mean authoritarian who wants to destroy our democracy!". In 2020, we realized that basically all of our institutions are corrupt - our media, our pharmaceutical companies, our government, our social media companies, our news organizations, etc. But our election systems are the one thing that's completely secure and in no way corrupt? 

If Republicans and Democrats actually cared about transparency in the elections, they'd be hammering home that we need election/voting reform and we need to find a way to make the system auditable and transparent such that there's no doubt on the outcomes, but that isn't happening with either party. And it won't happen, because this election/voting system we have now is what resulted in all of them being elected, so why would they want to change/improve it? A recent survey by Rasmussen doesn't exactly instill me with confidence as an American citizen in our elections:

One-in-Five Mail-In Voters Admit They Cheated in 2020 Election

I think the bold is either not true or a mis-representation of the facts. Fact: the Republicans had how many months was it to come up with evidence of significant fraud.They went to court about 60 times to show fraud and each case was rejected for lack of evidence. Even Giulliani said "We have theories, but no evidence" and has been convicted of defamation for alleging fraud that wasn't there. There were countless audits by Ninja Turtle Charlatan Group among others: again no evidence of fraud. It was one of the most observed, double checked elections that I've ever followed on the news, and to say "if it was completely auditable, completely transparent there would be no room to question it" suggests that you've missed the whole
Roger Stone/Steve Bannon/ Donald Trump strategy: throw enough doubts/confusion/bs at an issue, and people won't feel capable of trusting the evidence. But the evidence is there, 60 to zero in the law courts.

Your article: yes, those look like high percentages of mail-in misconduct, which clearly could be improved on. But those figures don't show all the misconduct favouring one candidate, so they can't be counted as a result-changing reason to chuck the election results out, though a policy of "do better next time" would be a good idea. To me, that's more in the nature of the democratic ideal getting fudged in its application, so goes along with gerrymandering and the whole lopsided thing about states, their populations and the numbers of representatives they send to the Capitol. Lots of room for improvement in the US election process, but not enough to reject it wholesale, imo. MAGA want to do that because Trump is the worst loser in American history. 

[Lisnaholic]

the 'fine people on both sides' hoax, the 'drinking bleach' hoax,

^ In haste, but not in anger, SGR, but what is this ?! There is video evidence: Trump said both of those things - though perhaps it wasn't specifically "drinking" the bleach: he wanted that doctor to work out the details of exactly how the bleach got to the lungs.

[SGR]

I think the bold is either not true or a mis-representation of the facts. Fact: the Republicans had how many months was it to come up with evidence of significant fraud.They went to court about 60 times to show fraud and each case was rejected for lack of evidence. Even Giulliani said "We have theories, but no evidence" and has been convicted of defamation for alleging fraud that wasn't there. There were countless audits by Ninja Turtle Charlatan Group among others: again no evidence of fraud. It was one of the most observed, double checked elections that I've ever followed on the news, and to say "if it was completely auditable, completely transparent there would be no room to question it" suggests that you've missed the whole
Roger Stone/Steve Bannon/ Donald Trump strategy: throw enough doubts/confusion/bs at an issue, and people won't feel capable of trusting the evidence. But the evidence is there, 60 to zero in the law courts.

Thanks for the response Lisna, but I disagree. Most of these court cases were rejected on 'standing'. This means that the party filing the case doesn't have 'sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case'. The courts didn't look at the evidence or arguments provided in these cases, they (for the most part) simply rejected them, based on the merit of the litigant. The courts not looking at the evidence and rejecting the case entirely doesn't mean that the cases had no credibility.

Your article: yes, those look like high percentages of mail-in misconduct, which clearly could be improved on. But those figures don't show all the misconduct favouring one candidate, so they can't be counted as a result-changing reason to chuck the election results out, though a policy of "do better next time" would be a good idea. To me, that's more in the nature of the democratic ideal getting fudged in its application, so goes along with gerrymandering and the whole lopsided thing about states, their populations and the numbers of representatives they send to the Capitol. Lots of room for improvement in the US election process, but not enough to reject it wholesale, imo. MAGA want to do that because Trump is the worst loser in American history. 

You're right, they show a fairly equal amount of misconduct among supporters of both parties. But per the bolded, you believe in the integrity of the electoral/voting systems of the US. And yet, you still seem to believe that somehow, this system of governance, along with its many checks and balances, would collapse if Trump gets re-elected, and a dictatorship would inevitably ensue. It seems like a bit of a dichotomy to me.

All that said, enjoy your time in England! 

[SGR]

^ In haste, but not in anger, SGR, but what is this ?! There is video evidence: Trump said both of those things - though perhaps it wasn't specifically "drinking" the bleach: he wanted that doctor to work out the details of exactly how the bleach got to the lungs.

Lisna, the 'fine people' thing is a well proven hoax. The media implied that he was talking about the neo-nazis and racists because they clipped out the part where he said after: "and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" - and pretended like that didn't happen.

Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/15/full-text-trump-comments-white-supremacists-alt-left-transcript-241662

This kind of selective editing was common in news media during the Trump administration, and if you don't get exposed to other news sources, you'd be none the wiser.

As for the other one, he was referring to a disinfectant via exposure of ultraviolet light in the body, the media simply took 'disinfectant' to mean bleach and ran with that. He wasn't talking about bleach, and if you think he was, that's a prime indicator that you need to check yourself on what you think you know, and what media sources you consume and trust.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/

[Nimbly9]

The funny thing about that "bleach hoax" is that there actually was (and still is) ongoing research being done out there to use UV to treat Covid-19 inside the body.  The media ridiculed Trump for saying it, but they were making it sound like it wasn't a thing when in fact it is.

Cedars Sinai - Reduced Viral Loads Seen in COVID-19 Patients Treated With UVA Light

[SGR]

The reaction of very rational and not at all hyperbolic media to the possibility of Trump being reelected:

https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1734679864152625626

[DJChameleon]

As for the other one, he was referring to a disinfectant via exposure of ultraviolet light in the body, the media simply took 'disinfectant' to mean bleach and ran with that. He wasn't talking about bleach, and if you think he was, that's a prime indicator that you need to check yourself on what you think you know, and what media sources you consume and trust.

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/07/13/fact-check-did-trump-tell-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus/113754708/

He might not have been talking about Bleach but do you know how many of his followers thought he was? Along with the Ivermentin stuff.

[Psy-Fi]

Trump says immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.' Biden campaign likens comments to Hitler.

[Mindy]

[Jwb]

Trump says immigrants are 'poisoning the blood of our country.' Biden campaign likens comments to Hitler.

lol those honestly do sound like Hitler esque comments.  Poisoning the blood of our country? That could easily be a Hitler quote.

[SGR]

He might not have been talking about Bleach but do you know how many of his followers thought he was? Along with the Ivermentin stuff.

If there's a reliable survey/poll on the party split between who believed that he was talking about bleach and who didn't, I'm not aware of it. That said, who do you think is more likely to have believed he was talking about bleach? His supporters who would consume more right-wing media that would be more favorable to Trump and thus more likely to debunk the lie, or people who oppose Trump who are more likely to consume the left-wing media that started the lie to begin with?

[SGR]

"Trump will end Democracy!"

As they quietly remove the ability to vote for Trump from the ballot.

Colorado supreme court disqualifies Trump from state's 2024 ballot

[Nimbly9]

They have more balls than I thought (though if Trump goes away I think the momentum and backlash is only going to help whoever the Republicans end up making their nominee).  Let's see how it plays out.

[SGR]

They have more balls than I thought (though if Trump goes away I think the momentum and backlash is only going to help whoever the Republicans end up making their nominee).  Let's see how it plays out.

I don't know if I agree. If Haley or Desantis end up becoming the nominee, I have doubts Trump supporters will vote for them - more likely they'd write in Trump, would be my guess (or stay home).