2024 Republican Primary

[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.

[Shhon]

[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).

[Jwb]

"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

I mean I'm torn on this.

If you actually believe in "democracy," as defined in our country,  that would also mean abiding by the constitution. Which is what they are purportedly doing.


But I also think from a pragmatic pov, removing him from the ballot will be problematic. It will make it seem like he was just being slienced by the deep state. There's not a clear easy answer to this. Hopefully if it's confined to this one state, it will be inconsequential anyway.  But I think we are teetering on the edge of outright political instability more and more with each election cycle.  It remains to be seen what this one has in store for us.

[DJChameleon]

"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

What does this even mean? I feel like the federal US Supreme court would just appeal it and it's meaningless and he will still be on the ballot.

But I also think from a pragmatic pov, removing him from the ballot will be problematic. It will make it seem like he was just being slienced by the deep state. There's not a clear easy answer to this. Hopefully if it's confined to this one state, it will be inconsequential anyway.  But I think we are teetering on the edge of outright political instability more and more with each election cycle.  It remains to be seen what this one has in store for us.

Only the people in the Cult of Trump would see this as him being silenced by the deep state. Who cares about those lunatics? If they want to start a Civil War over it with their militias then go right ahead. I hope they do so that they can see how outdated that concept is when the US military comes in and absolutely crushes them lol.

[SGR]

What does this even mean? I feel like the federal US Supreme court would just appeal it and it's meaningless and he will still be on the ballot.

I'm just pointing out what I see as hypocrisy. Many Democrats (but not all, if that even needs to be said) have claimed that the re-election of Trump will be the 'end of Democracy'. And now, an all-Democrat state Supreme Court axes him from the Republican ballot in their state.

To JWB's point, legal scholar Jonathan Turley said:

'The Colorado Supreme Court has handed down the most anti-democratic opinion in decades. Yet, these justices barred voters from being [able] to vote for their preferred candidate in the name of democracy. It is like burning down a house in the name of fire safety.

This country is a powder keg, and this court is just throwing matches at it...My first impression remains that same. The court is dead wrong in my view... ...It is striking that the court relies on Schenck v. U.S., where the Court upheld the denial of core free speech rights of a socialist opposing a war. The opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court is so sweeping that it would allow for tit-for-tat removals of candidates from ballots.'

This is the first time in history section 3 of the 14th amendment has been used to eliminate a presidential candidate from the ballot. To your point, it's likely that this will be appealed to the Supreme Court and they'll rule on it, one way or another. But I think this creates precedent for other states, and Colorado won't be the only state to attempt this. Colorado will likely be won by Biden (or whoever the Dem candidate is), so if it is entirely contained to this state, it won't make much of a difference - but I'm doubtful it will be solely contained to this state. That being said, the message of the decision itself is striking.