Significance of 6/1

[forkup]

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...

Well since you got really snooty with me, permit me to set you straight on a couple of things.

Firstly, I didn't TELL you what to do. I asked you what to do. English might simply be my fourth language but I'm pretty sure that the words please and thank you signify me ASKING you to do something.

Secondly, I always appreciate being corrected and you are of course right. On the other hand, I personally consider it good manners when replying to someone in a place like this to not make a conscious effort to derail the OP. Something which you did, by not making any contribution to the premise besides pointing me to my inadequacy in keeping all aspects of the English language straight.

Now, I will not tell you to go now. I will ask you to do so.

Oh.

Request denied...

Fair enough. At least you seem to be able to distinguish between a request and a command now.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

 

[colfax_m]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

 

[colfax_m]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

Only if they’re actually illegitimate. Trump calling them illegitimate does not make them so.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

Only if they’re actually illegitimate. Trump calling them illegitimate does not make them so.

He was telling them to check. IDK how much more clear he should have been. Maybe stamped it to his forehead and changed the call to facetime? Jesus Christ.

 

[colfax_m]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

Only if they’re actually illegitimate. Trump calling them illegitimate does not make them so.

He was telling them to check. IDK how much more clear he should have been. Maybe stamped it to his forehead and changed the call to facetime? Jesus Christ.

He wasn’t telling them to check, he was telling them to find something he wanted them too.

Because Raffensperger did say they checked and Trump said that because they checked and didn’t get the outcome he wants, they were wrong.

You see, if someone asks you to check something they would accept the outcome either way, because by checking you’ve fulfilled the request. Trump wasn’t satisfied with an outcome he didn’t like because he wasn’t asking to check, he was asking for a result.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

Only if they’re actually illegitimate. Trump calling them illegitimate does not make them so.

He was telling them to check. IDK how much more clear he should have been. Maybe stamped it to his forehead and changed the call to facetime? Jesus Christ.

He wasn’t telling them to check, he was telling them to find something he wanted them too.

Because Raffensperger did say they checked and Trump said that because they checked and didn’t get the outcome he wants, they were wrong.

You see, if someone asks you to check something they would accept the outcome either way, because by checking you’ve fulfilled the request. Trump wasn’t satisfied with an outcome he didn’t like because he wasn’t asking to check, he was asking for a result.

That isnt how it happened. I posted the appropriate paragraph above.
Fuck it. IDK why i tried with your partisan ass.
Because.
Cult.
Good day, dumbfuck.

 

[colfax_m]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

“Legal scholars” baloney. Allowing Pence to pick and chose electors would be chaos.

I listened to the entire hour long conversation with Raffensperger. It was an hour of asking him to do things which weren’t legal.

Chaos, sure. But that isnt what we are discussing.
What was illegal that he said do?

Chucking out votes without adequate justification is not legal. It would be deportation of rights without due process.

It’s true whether it’s Raffensperger chucking out votes from Georgia or Pence chucking out votes from states.

To check and throw out illegitimate votes isnt legal?
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT
Do you understand now?

Only if they’re actually illegitimate. Trump calling them illegitimate does not make them so.

He was telling them to check. IDK how much more clear he should have been. Maybe stamped it to his forehead and changed the call to facetime? Jesus Christ.

He wasn’t telling them to check, he was telling them to find something he wanted them too.

Because Raffensperger did say they checked and Trump said that because they checked and didn’t get the outcome he wants, they were wrong.

You see, if someone asks you to check something they would accept the outcome either way, because by checking you’ve fulfilled the request. Trump wasn’t satisfied with an outcome he didn’t like because he wasn’t asking to check, he was asking for a result.

That isnt how it happened. I posted the appropriate paragraph above.
Fuck it. IDK why i tried with your partisan ass.
Because.
Cult.
Good day, dumbfuck.

It’s exactly how it happened. As you said, you need CONTEXT. Trump said check these things. Raffensperger said we did and it’s not accurate. Trump said that they didn’t check enough and that everyone is lying to them because he won Georgia and no one was going to tell him otherwise.

Making excuses for Trump’s behavior is pathetic.

 

[forkup]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

 

[easyt65]

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.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

 

[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.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

 

[easyt65]

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.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

What you cherry-picked and posted does nothing to take away from the fact that he initially demanded a re-vote and suggested not allowing military members and other Americans abroad to participate.....

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

 

[Richard-H]

"Fight Like Hell"

"Stop the Steal"

"Go to the Capitol"

Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.

At least a majority in both the House & Senate thought so.

 

[forkup]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.

By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

 

[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.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

What you cherry-picked and posted does nothing to take away from the fact that he initially demanded a re-vote and suggested not allowing military members and other Americans abroad to participate.....

Sure and then the courts said no, and he accepted that ruling.

 

[easyt65]

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.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

What you cherry-picked and posted does nothing to take away from the fact that he initially demanded a re-vote and suggested not allowing military members and other Americans abroad to participate.....

Sure and then the courts said no, and he accepted that ruling.

Yes, but after demanding 'every vote must count' Gore was willing to f* military members abroad in a second if it meant he could win. If it were not for the courts, if Gore would have had his way, he would have f*ed the military and gone for the win.

 

[HappyJoy]

What happened on June 1st?

^Example of someone who just can't figure it out. It meaning available evidence and context to guide themselves through life.

FYI, most countries format their dates as dd/mm/yyyy, actually makes more sense.

Anyway, I'm being a dick. Sorry.

 

[InspectorDetector]

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...........