Let's talk about the oft repeated phrase "a threat to democracy" we believe trump presents.

[Seymour Flops]

I’m sorry, I know you guys are all trying to spin this, but there’s really no comparison between a candidate dropping out of the race and their opponent illegally conspiring with their political allies to toss out citizen’s votes.

It’s just absurd on its face.

You will say that even if the DNC convinces Biden's delegates to switch their votes?

 

[DGS49]

An almost uninimous number of delegates to the convention are committed to Biden. Unless he preemptively releases them, they may not vote for anyone else, at least on the first ballot.

Accordingly, only President Biden can facilitate the nomination of anyone else.

To refresh everyone's recollection, the reason why Biden was nominated in 2020 was because the Democrats had absolutely nobody else with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. He was, in effect, drafted out of desperation.

That dearth of credible Democrats remains in place.

 

[Marener]

You will say that even if the DNC convinces Biden's delegates to switch their votes?

Biden’s delegates can’t switch their vote unless Biden decides to leave the race. I’m one of those people that think he should.

Calling it disenfranchisement is silly.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Biden’s delegates can’t switch their vote unless Biden decides to leave the race. I’m one of those people that think he should.

Calling it disenfranchisement is silly.

Yes, they can. Biden agrees with me.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden said Thursday that his pledged delegates could vote their conscience — and he’s right, party rules say they can do just that. But historical precedent, as well as the delegate selection process, make it likely that the vast majority will stick with him anyway.

Biden said during his NATO press conference that delegates are “free to do whatever they want” at the Democratic National Convention, including nominate a different candidate. Shortly after, he mock-whispered into the microphone, “It’s not going to happen.”

On both counts, Biden’s assessment is likely accurate: DNC rules do technically leave room for “good conscience” to drive delegate decisions, yet they rarely abandon their pledged candidate. The vetting process for delegates also makes it unlikely that many would break from Biden unless he dropped out.

Biden says delegates can vote their conscience — and he’s right. But mass defections remain unlikely

President Joe Biden say his pledged delegates could vote their conscience, and party rules confirm that.

apnews.com

I know you don't want to admit it, so let's talk about you being one of the people that think Biden should step aside and release his delegates. Can you articulate why?

In particular, is it because he is too mentally incapable to win the election or because of the perception that he is mentally incapable?

 

[Seymour Flops]

An almost uninimous number of delegates to the convention are committed to Biden. Unless he preemptively releases them, they may not vote for anyone else, at least on the first ballot.

Accordingly, only President Biden can facilitate the nomination of anyone else.

To refresh everyone's recollection, the reason why Biden was nominated in 2020 was because the Democrats had absolutely nobody else with a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election. He was, in effect, drafted out of desperation.

That dearth of credible Democrats remains in place.

Untrue for the reason I explained above, with references.

Even if there was a current rule that delegates must vote as their voters chose, the same delegates would be able to vote to change that rule before voting on the presidential nominee.

 

[SweetSue92]

That's not what you asked. Stop lying.

Your reading comprehension issues are not my problem, thank God.

 

[SweetSue92]

Untrue for the reason I explained above, with references.

Even if there was a current rule that delegates must vote as their voters chose, the same delegates would be able to vote to change that rule before voting on the presidential nominee.

In any case, what a THREAT TO DEMOCRACY this is

 

[Mac1958]

When a major political party refuses to accept the results elections it loses, that is a clear and present threat to democracy.

That fact can only be too complicated to those who dishonestly refuse to understand it.

 

[pknopp]

Oh this will be fun.

NO ONE should be above ANY law?

You sure?

Here you simply asked me if I actually believed that no one should be above the law. I answered yes. I still do.

Cool. Let's talk about Jim Crowe. Should we have abided by those, were they just laws?

You then changed it to "abide". I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here but just because there is a law doesn't mean I support everyone abiding by it. One way to get it changed it to break it and then get arrested bringing attention to the law.

Do I believe anyone should say "Oh, that's just Bob, he can break the law".

No.

Can't sell your own radio in Detroit.

MCL - Section 750.383a - Michigan Legislature

www.legislature.mi.gov

In MI you cannot "seduce and debauch" an unmarried woman.

MCL - Section 750.383a - Michigan Legislature

www.legislature.mi.gov

These are just and good laws, right? Because someone made them laws?

Again, I never said all laws are good and just. Many are not. In those cases they should be changed, not simply allow some to be above them.

There was a law in Montgomery, AL that black people had to sit in the back of the bus and/or give up their seats for white people. I guess you love that law, right? It's a law, so it's good and just.

You would have told Rosa Parks, "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW"

As I noted, not a law.

When did the fun start?

Now back to the original question. Should anyone be allowed to be above the law? No.

 

[PredFan]

Except it’s not a lie. It’s documented that this was the plan by John Eastman who was advising the president.

You brush it aside by stating you don’t believe it. Tellingly, you refuse to say why you don’t believe it. Perhaps you don’t have any reason other than you don’t want to believe it.

Ok, you have nothing further to contribute and no matter how much logic or reason I use nor how many facts I put in front of you, you are going to stubbornly defend the indefensible. You are done, dismissed.

 

[PredFan]

There is a link to the memo in the OP.

Irrelevant. The existence of the memo isn't proof that it isn't bull shit.

 

[PredFan]

The Eastman memo lays out the unconstitutional plan of having Pence reject legitimate electors in favor of fake ones.

If all you are going to do is keep circling back to the memo that's not really proof of anything, then you have nothing more to add to the discussion.

 

[struth]

We spend so much time talking past each other I thought it might be useful to be more exacting in reference to what is meant by that phrase. It is most frequently used in the context of what another trump presidency may bring. Based in part on certain remarks he's made about retribution against his perceived enemies. And on the disavowed document, Project 2025, laying out a blueprint for what another term portends.

The thing is, we don't have to speculate about whether a threat will materialize..........it already has. I should say at this point I'm reluctant to illustrate what I mean because I know what kind of reaction it will elicit. But the point of the post is to be specific, not vague, so here goes.

On 4 January, the conservative lawyer John Eastman was summoned to the Oval Office to meet Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence. Within 48 hours, Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election would formally be certified by Congress, sealing Trump’s fate and removing him from the White House.
Tucker Carlson condemned over ‘false flag’ claim about deadly Capitol attack
The atmosphere in the room was tense. The then US president was “fired up” to make what amounted to a last-ditch effort to overturn the election results and snatch a second term in office in the most powerful job on Earth.

Eastman, who had a decades-long reputation as a prominent conservative law professor, had already prepared a two-page memo in which he had outlined an incendiary scenario under which Pence, presiding over the joint session of Congress that was to be convened on 6 January, effectively overrides the votes of millions of Americans in seven states that Biden had won, then “gavels President Trump as re-elected”.

The Eastman memo, first revealed by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their book Peril, goes on to predict “howls” of protest from Democrats. The theory was that Pence, acting as the “ultimate arbiter” of the process, would then send the matter to the House of Representatives which, following an arcane rule that says that where no candidate has reached the necessary majority each state will have one vote, also decides to turn the world upside down and hand the election to the losing candidate, Donald Trump.

‘A roadmap for a coup’: inside Trump’s plot to steal the presidency

A startling memo, a surreal Oval Office encounter – just some of the twists in the unfolding story of Trump’s bid to cling to power, which critics say was no less than an attempted coup

www.theguardian.com

Here's a link to the Eastman memo. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf

I'm hoping not to get bogged down by folks who will not accept this meeting actually did take place. If you can't accept that it did this would be a good jumping off point for you.

Moving on, we come to the matter of Jeffrey Clark. You may or may not recall trump wanted to name him acting AG in order to use the influence of the DoJ to pursue baseless claims of massive voter fraud, specifically in GA. When some of the top DoJ officials heard of trump's desire they threatened to quit en masse if he promoted Clark.

Read the Unsent Letter by Jeffrey Clark to Georgia Officials​

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with President Donald J. Trump and his allies to undo the election, wanted to send a letter to state officials in Georgia that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would affect the state’s election results.

Read the Unsent Letter by Jeffrey Clark to Georgia Officials (Published 2022)

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with President Donald J. Trump and his allies to undo the election, wanted to send a letter to state officials in Georgia that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would...

www.nytimes.com

Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump​

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

Finally, we come to trump's participation in the fake elector scheme.

Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Election​

Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Election

The most comprehensive factual record of former President Donald Trump and his close associates coordination of the false electors scheme.

www.justsecurity.org

Overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence proves beyond any doubt these things I've outlined happened. All of which with one goal in mind. To create a scenario leading to trump remaining in power.

I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself when I say this is what is meant when I contend trump is a threat to democracy. He has already threatened it. There is every reason to believe he will threaten it again. Especially after the recent rulings of his SCOTUS.

Ultimately, I'm asking trump supporters to examine the record I've laid out. The demonstrable evidence shows trump and his cohorts tried to change the outcome of a presidential election. I can think of few greater threats to democracy than that. They say past is prologue, hence my (our) concern.

You all tried to murder trump, your threat to democracy rhetoric is projection

 

[struth]

He got the courts to rule that some are above our laws. That laws do not apply to some in certain situations.

I believe that to be a major blow to Democracy.

So you are just stupid? How’s that trumps fault?

 

[pknopp]

So you are just stupid? How’s that trumps fault?

It was his argument before the court. I don't 100% place the blame on him though.

 

[SweetSue92]

When a major political party refuses to accept the results elections it loses, that is a clear and present threat to democracy.

That fact can only be too complicated to those who dishonestly refuse to understand it.

Now you're people about to replace the primary opponent they voted on because they've figured out they can't win.

That is after they impeached him twice

And used the courts to disqualify him

But he hurts your feelings of course

So that's all fine

 

[berg80]

The premise of your thread is that by "retribution" Trump will prosecute his adversaries.

Are you no longer concerned about that, given me explaining the process to you?

The premise of the thread is by virtue of the three aspects of the plot to steal the election I listed in the OP, trump has already proven himself to be a threat to democracy.

 

[berg80]

Not only that but he's he's been issuing public threats against members of the Democrat Party, the press, members of his own party who crossed him & anyone else he targets. This shit had been going on witn him for 8 years. Yea, he's not only a threat to Democracy, he's a threat to the well being of the victims that he targets, many who have had to hire their own security detail thanx to that miserable s.o.b.

The culture of politically motivated violence he has fomented was especially evident while his trials were in progress. What gets less attention is the power he has to stop it..........AND HIS REFUSAL TO DO SO.

 

[struth]

It was his argument before the court. I don't 100% place the blame on him though.

Soveign immunity isn’t anything new you idiot

 

[berg80]

But he hurts your feelings of course

I'm not sure the best way to describe the reaction to illegally trying to nullify the votes of millions of people is hurt feelings.