A question for MAGA

[CrakHoBarbie]

Do you believe that a president who was voted out of office by "we the people", should be allowed to retain said office if he can get his vice president to accept electors that are not abiding by the tallied votes?

 

[noonereal]

Power any way.

 

[Craig234]

That wasn't quite his plot. The plot was to get Pence to refuse to count some electors, so that there were not 270 electors certified for Biden, and under the constitution in that case the election would go to the House, where each state gets one vote, and they would 'legally' approve the 'alternate' electors for trump.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

That wasn't quite his plot. The plot was to get Pence to refuse to count some electors, so that there were not 270 electors certified for Biden, and under the constitution in that case the election would go to the House, where each state gets one vote, and they would 'legally' approve the 'alternate' electors for trump.

Donalds scheme to regain power Involved subverting the election in seven states by creating, then submitting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely claimed donald had won the electoral college in those states. Donald then passed those fraudulent certificates on to Mike Pence, hoping he would certify the fraudulent certificates over the authentic certificates.
If Pence had certified those fraudulent certificates, donalds coup d'état would of succeeded. And Donald would of retained power by illegally disenfranchising millions of voters.
These facts are public record.
What I find fascinating is how donalds sycophants know he tried to subvert democracy through fraudulent means, yet they still prefer a traitor, an enemy of democracy, over democracy itself.

 

[Craig234]

Donalds scheme to regain power Involved subverting the election in seven states by creating, then submitting fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely claimed donald had won the electoral college in those states. Donald then passed those fraudulent certificates on to Mike Pence, hoping he would certify the fraudulent certificates over the authentic certificates.

I'm not sure I have all the details, it seems there were probably both plots, but they weren't able to get the 'fake' electors in the system so it seemed to mainly fall back to the not certifying enough states to prevent the 270.

 

[cpwill]

Do you believe that a president who was voted out of office by "we the people", should be allowed to retain said office if he can get his vice president to accept electors that are not abiding by the tallied votes?

Respectfully, this question presupposes respect for a neutral rules-based system. Partisans are interested in rules only insofar as they help them seize and keep power.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Respectfully, this question presupposes respect for a neutral rules-based system. Partisans are interested in rules only insofar as they help them seize and keep power.

So you believe it is the right of a president, who has lost the election, to subvert democracy by installing "alternative" electors in an attempt at retaining power by disenfranchising millions of voters?
Think about your answer, because if you were to agree, that would signal a complete lack of moral and ethical fortitude on your part.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

I'm not sure I have all the details, it seems there were probably both plots, but they weren't able to get the 'fake' electors in the system so it seemed to mainly fall back to the not certifying enough states to prevent the 270.

Donalds scheme required Mike Pence to certify the "alternate" electors (the ones put in place by donald)on jan6th, over the valid electors, put in place by "we the people".

If donalds alternate electors would of been certified by Pence, Donald would of retained power, subverting the will of the people by disenfranchising millions of voters.

 

[cpwill]

So you believe it is the right of a president, who has lost the election, to subvert democracy by installing "alternative" electors in an attempt at retaining power by disenfranchising millions of voters?
Think about your answer, because if you were to agree, that would signal a complete lack of moral and ethical fortitude on your part.

1. Feel free to check my history on Jan 6th - which I have repeatedly described as an attempt to overthrow the Constitution by domestic enemies of the same.

2. However, you are attempting to ask people to agree to a set of rules that would apply to all sides. Partisans are not interested in rules. They are interested in power. Rules are considered to be useful (or dismissable) to whatever extent they help one's tribe gain or retain power.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

, you are attempting to ask people to agree to a set of rules that would apply to all sides.

Wrong.
I asked if magas think a president, who was voted out of office by "we the people", should be allowed to retain said office if he can get his vice president to accept electors that are not abiding by the tallied votes?

Answer the question as posted.

 

[Craig234]

Donalds scheme required Mike Pence to certify the "alternate" electors (the ones put in place by donald)on jan6th, over the valid electors, put in place by "we the people".

No, it only required Pence to say he did not accept some electoral votes, so that there were not 270 certified for Biden, which would then move the election to the House.

 

[cpwill]

Wrong.

I don't think so. We've been watching partisans - especially, recently, MAGA, who now drives many on the left to ape them, just as they initially depicted themselves as aping the left - descend further and further from any pretense at a rules-based-order into naked power pursuit.

I asked if magas think a president, who was voted out of office by "we the people", should be allowed to retain said office if he can get his vice president to accept electors that are not abiding by the tallied votes?

You that you are asking them about a scale they do not measure, and are not actually interested in (whatever they may protest - we have more than enough examples of Trumpian flip-flop to discount any claims of dedication to principle). It's like asking a fish what kind of toppings go best on a hamburger.

The answer for a MAGA-ite is "Whichever answer helps my team in the moment, or is the one currently being argued by Donald Trump".

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

You that you are asking them about a scale they do not measure, and are not actually interested in

So, you are claiming that maga's don't care about the will of the people, they just want what they want, and are prepared to do anything (including anything illegal, immoral and unethical) to get it.

I agree.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

No, it only required Pence to say he did not accept some electoral votes, so that there were not 270 certified for Biden, which would then move the election to the House.

Wow... you're getting a tad nit-picky here.
But , sure.....
Donalds scheme only required Pence to accept "some" of the fraudulent electors in order for donald to circumvent democracy.

 

[Craig234]

Wow... you're getting a tad nit-picky here.
But , sure.....
Donalds scheme only required Pence to accept "some" of the fraudulent electors in order for donald to circumvent democracy.

No, what I'm saying is Pence could accept NONE of the fraudulent electors, and simply not accept some legitimate electoral votes, to not have 270 and send the election to the House.

 

[cpwill]

So, you are claiming that maga's don't care about the will of the people, they just want what they want, and are prepared to do anything (including anything illegal, immoral and unethical) to get it.

I agree.

They think their is the will of "The People" (similar to when Obama claimed the support of everyone who hadn't voted), but, with that distinction, yeah, basically. I might also add they are not alone in this, merely more blatant.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Funny how I'm not seeing any magas here arguing the point?
I guess magas don't like admitting that they don't care about legalities, ethics nor morality when it comes to keeping their demigod in power.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

No, what I'm saying is Pence could accept NONE of the fraudulent electors, and simply not accept some legitimate electoral votes, to not have 270 and send the election to the House.

Wrong.
"There's nothing in the law about Pence doing anything but calling on tellers and announcing the results. The Constitution only gives him the power to count the votes".

CNN's Facts First searchable database - CNN

Search CNN’s Facts First database for fact checks related to the U.S. economy, mail-in voting, coronavirus, police reform and more.

www.cnn.com

VERIFY: Here's what the role of the vice president is during the Electoral College certification votes

With the final election results to be certified by Congress, many groups are claiming that Vice President Pence might overturn the results. So what's his role?

www.wusa9.com

Vice president doesn’t have power to ‘change the outcome’ of elections

While former President Donald Trump is no longer directly posting on Twitter or Facebook, a statement he issued on Sunday soon swirled on social media — falsely claiming that his former vice president “did have the right to change the outcome” of the 2020 election.

www.google.com

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

They think their is the will of "The People" (similar to when Obama claimed the support of everyone who hadn't voted), but, with that distinction, yeah, basically. I might also add they are not alone in this, merely more blatant.

Clearly, disenfranchising millions of voters through "alternate electors" is highly unethical.
But, as far as magas concerned, f___ ethics.

 

[cpwill]

Clearly, disenfranchising millions of voters through "alternate electors" is highly unethical.
But, as far as magas concerned, f___ ethics.

The partisan response is that they "HAVE" to "f ethics", because the Other Team Is So Bad And Does Unethical Things.....

Power and Partisan Advantage become their highest good.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

The partisan response is that they "HAVE" to "f ethics", because the Other Team Is So Bad And Does Unethical Things.....

Power and Partisan Advantage become their highest good.

I'm guessing this form of righteous indignation will be the excuse they use when they start a civil war over donald.

 

[cpwill]

I'm guessing this form of righteous indignation will be the excuse they use when they start a civil war over donald.

Maybe, but, I tend to suspect they are too lazy to do the Civil War bit (which, among other things, means going without wifi, restaurants, air conditioning, and the like).

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Maybe, but, I tend to suspect they are too lazy to do the Civil War bit (which, among other things, means going without wifi, restaurants, air conditioning, and the like).

I could be wrong, but, from the maga in my family, I don't see a lot of "thought" being put into play before they act.
If they truly believe that they're justified in breaking the law and disregarding morality and ethics to get what they want.....
They're capable of anything...

 

[cpwill]

I could be wrong, but, from the maga in my family, I don't see a lot of "thought" being put into play before they act.
If they truly believe that they're justified in breaking the law and disregarding morality and ethics to get what they want.....
They're capable of anything...

Then they are going to find out that Civil War also requires a lot of organization, or you just end up in jail.

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Then they are going to find out that Civil War also requires a lot of organization, or you just end up in jail.

Or dead.