Significance of 6/1

[OldLady]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

I agree with you, O Dyslexic One. Is it too late to fix all those 6/1 dates?

Nah, I will just have to live with this living reminder of my own stupidity. On the other hand, humility is good for the soul I've been told... usually by my wife who reminds me often that I'd be probably well served with some more of it.

Dyslexics aren't stupid! I hope your wife doesn't let you near the checkbook though.

I won't blame it on dyslexia. I have to blame it on me being European and this being my fourth language.

Yeah, you guys put the date backwards, don't you? I never would have guessed you were ESL Well done!

 

[Dadoalex]

What happened on June 1st?

Does it have anything to do with what happened during the elections? I'm not all that interested in whataboutisms. Please answer the premise or don't respond at all. Thank you.

Well, since you've gotten mildly snooty with me, permit me to set you straight on a couple of points.

First, don't tell me what to do. You're just not that guy.

Second, I didn't offer any "whataboutisms", so it's stupid for you to even bring it up.

Lastly, here in the States, when we express a date with only numbers, generally speaking the month comes first, then the date, then the year.

Kinda like this; June 1 of this year would be expressed as "6/1/21" or "6/1/2021".

Now, I don't know where in the world you are, but understand that this forum is predominantly American. So, when you go writing "What happened on 6/1?", people are going to start looking at June on their calendar.

You may go now...

So you were unable, from the context, to determine the date?
No wonder you're unable to discuss the topic.

Yes, I could easily decipher what the post was referring to. My initial comment, regarding the date, was tongue in cheek.

Then the OP decided to get pissy and, well, fuck that...

NO, not "tongue in cheek," just a troll.
If you don't want to discuss the topic just fly away,

Fuck off, dickhead...

And still unable to discuss the topic.

Go fuck yourself, dipshit...

And, as expected, still unable to discuss the topic.
But more than willing to describe his plans for Friday night.

 

[forkup]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

I agree with you, O Dyslexic One. Is it too late to fix all those 6/1 dates?

Nah, I will just have to live with this living reminder of my own stupidity. On the other hand, humility is good for the soul I've been told... usually by my wife who reminds me often that I'd be probably well served with some more of it.

Dyslexics aren't stupid! I hope your wife doesn't let you near the checkbook though.

I won't blame it on dyslexia. I have to blame it on me being European and this being my fourth language.

Yeah, you guys put the date backwards, don't you? I never would have guessed you were ESL Well done!

Thank you. It was stupid because I knew and simply forgot.

 

[FA_Q2]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

If I recall correctly - Trump never once said go and start a coup to the thousands that had gathered at his speech.

He DID however called on the audience to "march to the Capitol and protest this stolen election, let your voice be heard".

So, in my opinion your "poll" is screwed from the beginning. Just my $.02.........

This election was the beginning of the end of "fair" elections in this country. It has finally come to a head. And Jesus wept...........

You did see that whatever happened on 6/1/21 is kind of besides the premise of my OP? I have more trouble with what Trump did in general after he was declared to have lost. That's what my poll is about.

So you are basically saying that a loser of an election doesn't have a right to dispute the "results" of an election that he feels was fraudulent? Hmmm...interesting.

I will anxiously await your poll when a fascist democrat calls an election "unfair" - should that happen *(it won't because Republicans are too damned stupid to rig elections as the fascists have)

If you lose the election. Can you try to get people to ignore the result, even when losing in court?​

See that last bit of the sentence?

You can dispute the results to your heart's content. You do this by filing complaints to the courts. You do not do it by trying to prevent the certification of the results, you do not do it by trying to get the DOJ to intervene on your behalf. You do not do it by trying to elect alternate electors. You do not do it by trying to get a Secretary of State to a state to intervene. And you do not do it by breaking into the Capitol.

He CAN bloviate to his hearts content, that is how freedom works. That does not make it good, correct or even effective but you can get on your soap box and proclaim whatever you want.

He was the President of the United States, so his bloviation does have meaning. Point in fact. Dozens of States are now legislating on the basis of his bloviation.

Never said it did not have meaning. Does not change that he can.

It also does not surprise me that states run to grab power when something, anything, goes wrong. There is no law that can stop Trump or Trumpism, that is directly on the electorate and the fact that such a large portion of it has been utterly ignored by our government. That states want to legislate the effects away just means that they are still ignoring the disease.

The problem is that besides the "bloviation" there is no evidence that anything went wrong.

And the net result is that the states that are legislating on the basis of that bloviation are legistlating so it will make it harder for the electorate to respond. By trying to surpress the vote of those that would oppose them

Every election we hear hear the same bullshit about voter fraud and voter suppression, the same coin just different sides and they are both bullshit.

The republicans have been so actively suppressing the vote that voter turnout keeps increasing. Just as there is a massive lack of evidence that the election was 'stolen' there is no evidence whatsoever that the republicans have suppressed the vote. The same democrat's that demand Trump is treasonous because he claims the election was stolen also cry about Stacy Abrams really being elected as GA's governor. They hypocrisy is beyond understanding.

 

[forkup]

The republicans have been so actively suppressing the vote that voter turnout keeps increasing. Just as there is a massive lack of evidence that the election was 'stolen' there is no evidence whatsoever that the republicans have suppressed the vote. The same democrat's that demand Trump is treasonous because he claims the election was stolen also cry about Stacy Abrams really being elected as GA's governor. They hypocrisy is beyond understanding.

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021

States have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session.

www.brennancenter.org

This is a roundup of all the bills currently voted on and still to be voted on. Their effects on voting and the states this is occurring. You will find that those states that have GOP-led statehouses are massively voting laws that impose restrictions on voting and very few that will expand voting. How is this NOT voter suppression?

And no voter turnout doesn't keep on increasing. It went down from 2008 to 2012 for instance. It went up about a percent in 2016 and jumped massively in 2020 mainly because of an increase in mail-in voting.

Neither is voter turnout a good indicator to measure voter supression. Turnout depends on what candidates are running for instance. It's also very regional. If for instance, California makes voting a bit easier, while for instance, Alabama would make it a whole lot harder, voting turnout would go up across the country while Alabama's laws would have a much bigger impact on voting in the respective States. Something that is significant considering the fact that the US doesn't elect a president by popular vote.

 

[bripat9643]

The republicans have been so actively suppressing the vote that voter turnout keeps increasing. Just as there is a massive lack of evidence that the election was 'stolen' there is no evidence whatsoever that the republicans have suppressed the vote. The same democrat's that demand Trump is treasonous because he claims the election was stolen also cry about Stacy Abrams really being elected as GA's governor. They hypocrisy is beyond understanding.

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021

States have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session.

www.brennancenter.org

This is a roundup of all the bills currently voted on and still to be voted on. Their effects on voting and the states this is occurring. You will find that those states that have GOP-led statehouses are massively voting laws that impose restrictions on voting and very few that will expand voting. How is this NOT voter suppression?

It is voter suppression. It suppresses the votes of dead people, illegal aliens and other kinds of voters who aren't allowed to participate in our elections.

And no voter turnout doesn't keep on increasing. It went down from 2008 to 2012 for instance. It went up about a percent in 2016 and jumped massively in 2020 mainly because of an increase in mail-in voting.

Neither is voter turnout a good indicator to measure voter supression. Turnout depends on what candidates are running for instance. It's also very regional. If for instance, California makes voting a bit easier, while for instance, Alabama would make it a whole lot harder, voting turnout would go up across the country while Alabama's laws would have a much bigger impact on voting in the respective States. Something that is significant considering the fact that the US doesn't elect a president by popular vote.

Using the term "voter suppression" just means you support legalized fraud. You aren't fooling anyone.