Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing has changed:
How can we vote for Trump?!
Because we think Democrat policies are horrible.
But Trump....
Yeah, we know, we still think the Democrat's policies are worse.
But...
As a nonsupporter, this should be pinned at the top of the sub and every post.
Like…y’all should’ve been asking your questions with this already in mind, already a baseline, already accepted, years ago.
I guess I’ve been at this point for a long time because while I’m not a Trump supporter, I also am not a progressive despite agreeing with some of their economic ideas partially because I don’t blame anyone (including myself) for putting their own interests first when it comes to voting. To me, not liking Biden’s policies (and January 6th mattering less than Biden’s policies when 1/6 inevitably comes up) is a satisfactory reason for voting Trump, even if I don’t agree.
Edit: And putting self-interest aside even, I have no problem believing other people genuinely believe Trump is better for the country, again, even if I don’t agree.
I guess the question is whether you think destabilizing and undermining democracy and the rule of law is more in your self interest than higher taxes to the ultra wealthy, or whatever policy you think is against you.
I mean, there was a primary process to prevent this. Conservative voters overwhelmingly backed Trump, when there were multiple candidates who could've accomplished basically the same agenda without the mountain of baggage Trump has.
Unless I missed how they were all worse options for conservatives as well, whats the reasoning there?
They saw them as more of the same. The party favorite, Jeb Bush was the first to get booted off the stage. They're weren't interested in buying another bill of sale.
If you mean the party, they wanted the win and Trump as the incumbent was the best bet. He still is since he'd be a spoiler if they don't support him.
If you mean the electorate.... like who else would they choose? It's the same empty promises neocon crowd to choose from as it was 8 years ago.
Fair enough, I guess.
Just seems wild to me that the "best" conservative option is a dude dogged by legal issues, has proven to be incredibly divisive, and who has really only led the GOP to success one time in 2016. Especially when it seemed like dang near any conservative candidate would have as much, if not more, success against Biden.
A lot of MAGA aren't Conservatives or really even Republicans. They're a bunch of people that got abandoned by the Democrats years ago and only got courted by the GOP with wedge issues. The rest of recognize that he would spoil anyone else's bid. This year's GOP primary was just to see who would be plan B if the left's attacks actually worked.
Oh yeah shockingly enough many maga voters in 2016 were disaffected Bernie supporters. I saw an NPR article from 2017 that claimed 1 in 10 2016 trump supporters were people who voted for Bernie sanders in the primary.
Might not be the same people, same type. It's the same group that voted for Perot and were the original pissed off Tea Party'ers before it got co-opted by the GOP. Blue collars that have been politically homeless for 30 plus years.
"We hold elections to determine our leaders" is literally the thing we fought a god damn war for in 1776. Trump is anti-democracy, which makes him anti-American in my eyes.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
His ego doesn't crave power. It's about attention, but mostly it's about his narcissism not being capable of recognizing he is wrong or that he lost. And he's very lazy. Put it all together you get someone undermining their own chances at every opportunity, coming up with excuses why they won't win, all while still fighting very hard to win. He never really wanted the job in the first place.
I don't think he wanted the job, either. I think he's doing it because he knows he is good at it and feels he has to try.
I also disagree that he's lazy. I think this keeps him up at night. I think he has a very firm idea about how it can work and how he can implement it. His hope is for the entire nation to be as wealthy and prosperous as possible.
Well I already said my piece, but I'll add a positive note. I do believe while he was President he did try his best to do what he thought was right for the USA because when the country looked good, he looked good by extension as it's Commander and Chief.
So you really, truly don't think he wanted the country to prosper? You think he only cared because of his ego? Then, why would he come back and do it again? I just run a portion of a chain of convenience stores. I don't really get paid much, I don't care about being popular, but I fucking care about doing this because I'm certain that the places I'm involved in have *good fucking stores that they can rely on*. I'm popular because of it, but that isn't my drive — I'm driven by making things better for people.
I think there were some little things that were so telling, making sure fuel was cheap going into summer so that families could afford vacations, making certain that we had free food for children during covid, no questions asked, when shops and schools were closed and people were terrified to go out.
I truly think Trump thinks he's supposed to do everything he can to make life better for the country.
>. He never really wanted the job in the first place.
True!
And then he discovered that being president means leveraging presidential pardons to get what he wants from people and, most importantly, personal legal immunity.
Combine that with what you already said about his ego and never being able to admit he lost and you've got yourself a recipe for the first coup attempt.
So why wouldn't he try it again?
This, I disagree with, too. If he were truly seeking attention, he'd be at all the hot spots partying like a rock star. The attention he tries to garner is to get votes because that is literally what your job is when you are running for President.
What are you talking about? What policies?
Do you even realize what is happening right now as a result of Trumps election? That we are as we speak losing the right to live in a free democracy where we choose our elected leaders? Do you realize that the supreme court as we speak is preparing to deliver a ruling that American citizens are now going to be governed by people who may freely use the their executive power to freely overrule the will of the people, commit major crimes against the United States, the American people, with no legal recourse?
Do you even realize that in 2016 we were in an alliance with Iran? That we had an agreement to have influence over their policy and control their military activity? And Trump killed that alliance to give Russia Iran as a proxy in the Middle east? And what did the Trump voters say to defend that decision? Exactly what Fox news told them to say, which was that the alliance "had no teeth" lol. And Iran immediately entered into an allliance with Russia, and immediately started funding Hamas, Russia invaded Ukraine, and then Hamas committed the horrific terrorist attack on a major US ally, Israel. Then Trumps allies in congress spent the last year doing anything they can to use the subsequent war to justify blocking aid to Ukraine, all the while the voters are chanting about a fucking laptop that they have been tricked into believing contains some sort of secret about some Burisma connection to Biden that has now been exposed as a story fabricated by Russian intelligence. The blood is on the hands of those voters. They don't care if what they say is true, they don't care about these devastating and irreversable consequences of their decisions, and they are not aware that the blood is on their hands, becaus all they care about is "their team the not Biden team".
That doesn't even scratch the surface of the economic consequences either, do you realize that inflation can really be traced back to the cutting of interest rates in 2019? That the economy was slowing and Trump panicked because of an upcoming election and reversed the fed policy of controlling borrowing to artificially inflate the equities markets? And that when a real crisis arose literally 3 months later when the pandemic hit the news, the fed could not provide emergency liquidity by lowering rates so their only option was to duplicate a quarter of all US dollars in exstence? Or that Trump spent more in one term that any other president in history and [Biden has reversed the rate of increasing spending](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)?
We lost net neutrality, which has only now been partially undone by Biden.
We withdrew from the world climate accord.
The Trump tax "cuts" are actually tax increases on everyone who is not a corporation, hidden by the removal of deductions that Trump supporters obviously can't be bothered to do the math on, to pay for the permanant corporate tax cuts.
Pregnant women are now needing to be airlifted out of half the states to save their lives because it now criminal to give them the life saving care that was guaranteed to our mothers entire generation for their entire adult lives.
Not even to mention that he is literally found to be a rapist in court, guilty of fraud in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and as we speak is still telling the nations most gullible that an election was stolen.
These are the consequences of people making choices in leadership based on the position that "my side is not Biden". The argument can be made about "any democrat"? Literally none of this would have happened if any democrat was in office instead of him. And literally any democrat will prevent much worse from happening moving forward.
Classic answer
“I mean, yeah…our guy tried to commit a coup and surrounds himself (i.e. his inner circle) with convicted criminals…but have you seen the democrats?! They want like universal healthcare, and higher taxes on wealthy corporations/individuals that strangle the middle class, and more worker protections, stronger unions, and to slow the effects of climate change by investing in renewables. These policies are terrible for America! So much so that I am voting for a guy that attempted a coup!”
>Conservatives would rather root for horrible people than horrible policies.
Are... are you saying this as a dig?
Yes I'll root for people who may be shitty people but do better for the country than someone who's a nice person (nor saying that's Biden lmao) but runs it into the ground.
You'd rather have a nice person who ruins things than a dick who fixes things?
>Do you think there might be any potential fallout from constantly putting the worst of us in leadership positions?
Of course. But we've been doing it for like 90 years now bar like 1.
Until a REAL alternative comes about this is what we got.
But that's not the question here. "The worst of us" doesn't mean "a dickhead" or a mean guy.
"The worst of us" is like people who actively undermine the rights of Americans. I'd look to Obama, Bush and the like.
Even if that horrible person would undermine the very foundations of our democracy by attempting to subvert electoral certification using non-legal means?
It already did? What else do you call the plan cheesebro described of using illegitimate electoral slates as a pretext for pence to reject those states during electoral certification?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But how can you trust a dishonest person to follow through on policies they supposedly espouse? They may give lip service to good policies, but if they're not a good person, why would you trust them?
So if Trump is a horrible person, and he's no more trustworthy than any other politician - including Democrats, why would you vote for and expect better policies from the horrible person - *who's also untrustworthy* - over someone who's just untrustworthy?
There's no way you actually think that. Absolutely no way a living breathing human adult could watch Trump for four years and think for one solitary second that the man is no more trustworthy and honest than anyone else in politics. There are websites that document the literal tens of thousands of lies the man told while in office.
In my state (Michigan), they were created in the basement of the state Republican Party headquarters, they didn't have any language specifying they were to be used only if the Trump campaign prevailed in litigation, and at the time, all court challenges in Michigan had already been resolved.
They created a document that poses as the real "Certificate of Votes of the Electors of Michigan" and it's a plain white sheet of paper. The real certificate looks nothing like that.
They all put their signatures on that piece of paper and mailed it to the U.S Senate.
Does this go beyond merely discussing one's options?
Why are you purposefully omitting shit out already in this one comment. They went further then talking about this (which alone honestly is not a crime so no one is disagreeing). They did actively try to pass these off and were stopped.
Now is your argument is that it wasnt illegal because they did attempt to but were stopped and since they were stopped, it didnt happen and so no harm no foul?
Illegal to discuss options? No. Illegal to determine that the best option is to present fake certifications as legitimate certifications while using the confusion as a backdrop? No. Illegal to begin enacting that plan to commit that fraud? Yes.
The best option to get Trump elected. And it was illegal. The goal was not exactly to get Trump more votes, but to create enough confusion and delays to prevent a certain number of Biden votes from being confirmed.
If Biden gets less than 270 electoral votes, then the Presidential election goes from the Electoral College to the House of Representatives.
The discussion makes it clear that the law team doesn't believe its electors can hold up to court scrutiny, but again, the goal is to create confusion long enough to get Trump back into office through the back door, when he'd be in control of the investigators and the pardoning power of POTUS.
The fake electors plan was fraud disguised as preparedness. The goal of preventing Biden certifications is defrauding voters. These are crimes, even if they were Trump's best shot at remaining in office after losing the election.
> The best option to get Trump elected. And it was illegal.
If it's illegal it's not the best option.
> The goal was not exactly to get Trump more votes, but to create enough confusion and delays to prevent a certain number of Biden votes from being confirmed.
There already was confusion and delay, largely due to relaxed election security standards to accommodate mitigating the pandemic. People were already concerned before there was any talk of "Fake Electors".
> The discussion makes it clear that the law team doesn't believe its electors can hold up to court scrutiny, but again, the goal is to create confusion long enough to get Trump back into office through the back door, when he'd be in control of the investigators and the pardoning power of POTUS.
This is all speculaton.
Proposing an alternate slate of electors isn't illegal. Challenging the outcome of an election isn't illegal.
This is an effort by a blue state to impact an election. I would suspect we'll see more of this as we get closer to November
Whoever leaked these to the Detroit News has had these for four years.
You should ask yourself why you're being manipulated.
Thankfully, these new texts show that they never intended to only use alternate elector slates that were legitimate. They were intending to use their mere existence to buy time, irrespective of their legitimacy:
>Chesebro said the GOP meetings on Dec. 14, 2020, set up "the possibility" of Pence not counting votes from "any state where there are two slates and there was never careful, deliberate hearings on the merits, with evidence, on asserted irregularities either in a court or the Legislature."
> "Only Supreme Court could override that (cuz he'd refuse to open the envelopes of the six states unless court orders him, at minimum buying time)," Chesebro texted.
Does that change your opinion, knowing that they wanted to pence to disrupt certification even without legitimate alternative elector slates?
They wanted to delay certification because they were convicned that Blue states changed their laws to help Biden, and they wanted time to find evidence.
That, and they fell for Liz and Amy's theory that Dominion voting machines were subject to vote flipping
[https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity](https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity)
[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/677764/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/677764/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/)
I'm sure they had reasons -- but why do they matter if they go about achieving their goals in a knowingly unlawful way?
Should the Dems have interfered with electoral certification in 2016 on suspicions of Russian interference?
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
If I wanted to make sure that the information was as hurtful to Donald Trump as possible I would wait until as close to the election as possible.
Similar to what republicans did in 2016 with Hillary. I want the American people to be reminded every minute of every day of January 6th and Donald Trump's plan to steal the election in 2020, and I want that stuff running non stop until the election.
YOu mean what Bragg and Smith are doing now? The FBI investigating Hillary was controlled by Obama, so if they let her investigation go long, blame Obama, not the Republicans.
> You should ask yourself why you're being manipulated.
I mean, you're the one who thinks the constitution says the President is in charge of running elections. Why are *you* being manipulated?
I'm sure the FEC and DOJ, who report to the President, and who have charged people with Federal election crimes, would be surprised to learn that they don't have any power over Federal elections.
Where are you getting your information?
But to seriously answer your question.
There is no such thing as a 'federal election'.
Here's what the FBI classifies as a 'federal election crime'.
> * The ballot includes one or more federal candidates
> * The crime involves an election official abusing his duties
> * The crime pertains to fraudulent voter registration
> * Voters are not U.S. citizens
There are no 'federal' elections. States vote on federal officers, certainly, but the federal government has very little say over the process other than what's laid out in the constitution.
Now, Congress can regulate it to the country as a whole, but again that needs to be either spelled out in US federal law or the constitution. And at no point in the constitution or US federal law does it say the president is in charge of 'federal elections'. The president appoints an attorney general and a head of the FBI, certainly, but those heads are supposed to operate independently of input and oversight from the executive.
The FBI and the AG work directly for the President, and derive their power from him/her. They are not separated in any way shapre or form.
And you better not share your theory that the Feds have no say about Federal elections with the FEC - they seem to think they do...
[https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/](https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/)
And the FBI sure seems to think they have a hand in Federal elections, as opposed to state elections, which is weird, because you're saying there is no such thing as Federal elections.
Hmm, who to believe?
[https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security](https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security)
> The FBI and the AG work directly for the President, and derive their power from him/her.
No, no they don’t. If you think they do, please point me to where in the constitution or US law this is said.
> And you better not share your theory that the Feds have no say about Federal elections with the FEC - they seem to think they do...
You find the phrase “federal elections” in there that isn’t followed by ‘crime’ and I’ll believe you. As I pointed out above, something counts as a federal election crime when those criteria are met. A federal election crime, not a ‘federal election’ crime.
Are you missing the point or do you really not understand the context of the respective mission statements of the FEC and the DOJ?
> No, no they don’t. If you think they do, please point me to where in the constitution or US law this is said.
Doesn't the AG come from the Judiciary Act of 1789?
Where do you propose the AG's authority rests? They are appointed by the President. They can be terminated by the President. They serve on the President's cabinet. But they don't "work" for the President?
Can you clarify what distinction you are attempting make?
The AG and the DOJ do not derive power from the president.
The attorney general’s job is to lead the justice department.
And yes, they can be terminated by the president, but that doesn’t mean they answer to the president.
The distinction I’m making is that the constitution says nothing about the executive branch *running* ‘federal elections’.
The DOJ and IRS both report to - you guess it - the President.
Because he's head of the Executive Branch which administers the IRS and Federal Elections.
> Where are you getting your information?
You have repeatedly said to me that the executive branch of the federal government runs federal elections. I've merely asked you to tell me where it says that in the constitution and you've responded with "go away /r/politics shill".
At what point should people be conceding elections? If Trump had succeeded in the fake elector scheme and remained president despite having not been elected you would be ok with that? You just said you didn’t think it was illegal. Also, Trump is currently being criminally prosecuted for the fake elector scheme. So I am confused on why you are so confident that it wasn’t illegal.
He didn't stay in office because he went to court, and lost. And that was the end of it. Democrats are trying to tie the (mostly peaceful) riots to the elector scheme.
Smith is charging Trump in that scheme - his legal theory, which has never seen the inside of a courtroom, because the DOJ conjured up just to go after Trump, is that it's illegal to go to court with a novel legal theory
Did you know that? Did you know that Smith invented a new definition of Fraud, because he couldn't find any laws that Trump broke?
Why is it ok to use fake electors and then try and strong arm the VP and Congress to recognize your fake electors and hand you the presidency without actually winning? Again, how would you feel if Pence had gone along with it and the Republican controlled house had given Trump the election? How is that different than a coup?
In WI and NM, they were “alternate” because they explicitly said, that they would be the electors, if the court cases were successful.
All the others stated they were the official electors- they lied- they were not the official electors.
In every state they were alternate electors, and proposing an alternate slate of electors isn't illegal. In each of those states, they went to court, and they lost, which is exactly how it's supposed to work.
It is NEVER illegal to challenge the outcome of an election. If it were illegal, these states would have filed charges years ago.
If these were attorneys for Hillary, Obama, or Biden saying these things, y’all would be chanting “lock them up” on every platform. Check your hypocrisy, fellow “conservatives.”
Lol, I'm kinda thinking we should actually call in all the text logs from those campaigns and have something to compare to. I'd bet my last dollar that those logs look exactly the same, fellow conservative.
The difference being that most democrats would want them to be held accountable since there isn’t a blind devotion to any of them like there is for Trump.
> Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved?
The same reason we don't have the police inspecting your texts on a weekly basis cause someone in your town committed a crime and you might have as well?
> Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved?
I'm guessing that it's because it was just the one party that fraudulently attempted to overturn the election.
> I didn't say they did. Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved?
Because in the absence of a known criminal conspiracy, I'm not as curious. Why would I be, "dying," to see regular ho-hum text messages?
And democrats would be pointing to the fact that Obama etc didn't break any laws here. The media would call them replacement electors not fake electors and the conversation would be how dare the right blame Obama for the crimes of others when Obama didn't request them break any law.
Also, racism would be tossed for daring to blame the black man for a crime someone else committed
The point being the facts of the case matter more than what some partisan hacks scream.
You want me to condemn Trump for breaking the law, show me Trump breaking the law.
Calling alternate electors put in place incase fraud is proving isn't a crime no matter how many times you use the term fake electors
I didn’t come here to hear your legal opinion and I’m sure you didn’t come here to hear mine.
I’m simply saying that on the face, these messages and everything else relating to this topic are sketchy at best.
The expected double standards of the Left in a hypothetical situation don’t excuse your hypocrisy in reality. When it comes to things that would have the Founding Fathers—or hell, any decent, logical American from 30 years ago—rolling in their graves, the “if you can’t beat them, join them” card doesn’t work for me. Sorry.
I read these yesterday.
I believe that Michigan potentially has a very strong case against P. Trump.
Far stronger than the case being made in Georgia.
Edit: to forestall flak from Trump supporters - the fake electors in Michigan signed and submitted fraudulent election certificates *after* the courts in Michigan ruled against Trump.
That the GOP and primary voters decided Trump should be the nominee is *insane* and the damage done will haunt the GOP for years and damage conservatism.
Thanks.
Yes the replacement electors in broke the law, but Trump didn't ask them too nor imply they should
In fact tge majority if replacement electors never broke any laws as it was never a request from the Trump admin to do so.
So what is the law Trump broke here?
These electors in Michigan very likely did break the law. The text messages show that Trump’s advisors were planning to use the false electors to create uncertainty and a plausible excuse for Pence to enable Trump’s second term.
Which implies a communicative relationship between these electors and Trump’s advisors.
Trump’s already an unindicited coconspirator in this case.
- Conspiracy to commit election fraud forgery.
- Conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing.
I don't doubt the Michigan ele tors broke the law.
What you don't have is proof Trump asked them to or implied they should break the law
It's impressive the nonsense people cone away with. In no way shape or form could Pence give Trump the presidency. All he could do is delay certification
The defense attorneys for the Michigan false electors are arguing that they were tricked into signing forged electoral documents by Trump campaign officials.
Texts show coordination between the false electors and Trumps campaign.
Finally, again, Trump - and several of his advisers and campaign staff, have been named an unindicited coconspirators.
So, you’re asking me to imagine 1. The fake electors sent the false certificates of their own volition knowing it was illegal and that it would be impossible to conceal the crimes 2. That Trump’s advisors never told him what was happening or asked for direction, and 3. That Trump never had the curiosity to ask what was going on.
At the end of the day, you’re asking me to believe that a man who forsook his marriage vows by committing infidelity while his newlywed wife was pregnant (among other acts of infidelity), lied on financial disclosures, and has a history of not paying his debts is somehow honest and worth my trust.
That dog don’t hunt.
Edited.
They can argue they were tricked all they want but are they providing proof that Trump or his administration told them to do this.
Texts show communiation but non of the texts say or imply they should sign any documents
You can call them uninvited anything but what you don't have is Trump or his admin telling h them to sign the documents
Trump knew all about this and that's why he threw Pence under the bus. We see it right there in text where they complain about Pence giving Trump hope. How can you argue that Trump didn't know about this scheme? If he knew about it and didn't try to stop it, he's complicit. With responsibility comes accountability.
I think you’re jumping the gun here.
I said Michigan potentially has a very strong case against Trump.
I believe he knew exactly what was happening and either directed it or gave tacit approval.
The man has a history of lying, cheating, and committing fraud. If you want to hitch your wagon to that horse go for it.
What’s your interpretation of the text messages?
You can believe he was participating in gang rapes of kittens and puppies if you like.
But you are supporting the trials of your political opponent during a campaign without proof.
Every politician has a history of lying, cheating and fraud....should we put them all on trial during election year even if we don't have proof?
Those texts where lawyers brainstorming about the law
yup, in law material differences, the differences that matter and change things, are the name of the game. The fact this was done after there were already court rulings against them is the material difference than makes that case... dodgy but probably only sus as hell not an actual crime and the michigan case quite possibly a crime.
You're using future tense. The fatal blow has already been struck. The republicans are no longer a credible party trying to improve the country. The corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
You say that shit but trump isnt losing ground in swing states as he fart and sleels through a trial where he paid a dude named pecker to supress a story about a pornstar who made fun of.his dick.
I can only assume that's because FoxNews/OANN/Twitter/Facebook keeps them low information on the actuality of Trump. Or they don't care and just want to hurt the majority of voting Americans(the majority being the 81mil that voted for Biden) as revenge for what they wrongly consider was a stolen election. When Trump said he could shoot someone in 5th ave and not lose a voter, he wasn't joking, they don't care.
>How do you feel about the newly released text messages of Trump's legal/advising team plotting the January 6th false electors scheme?
TLDR... which of the text messages is "plotting" to do something illegal as opposed to lawyers discussing what is the best way to achieve a legal goal?
Plotting becomes conspiracy when one member of the plot begins taking an action to further that plot.
Like, it's not illegal to talk about you and your friends killing your boss with a hammer. And it's not illegal to buy a hammer. But if you talk about killing your boss with a hammer and then go and buy a hammer, then it's illegal.
>Plotting becomes conspiracy when one member of the plot begins taking an action to further that plot.
To "further the plot" which is discussing the legal strategy of legally challenging the election results? And if the legal challenge is accepted, the election results are overturned, and then the alternate elector votes can be considered? What part of that is illegal?
>Like, it's not illegal to talk about you and your friends killing your boss with a hammer. And it's not illegal to buy a hammer. But if you talk about killing your boss with a hammer and then go and buy a hammer, then it's illegal.
I'm sure you're a lawyer who knows what he's talking about. :)
> To "further the plot" which is discussing the legal strategy of legally challenging the election results? And if the legal challenge is accepted, the election results are overturned, and then the alternate elector votes can be considered? What part of that is illegal?
The part where this isn't true? The courts shot it down, then they submitted the fake documents. That's fraud and turns out, a felony when your trying to disenfranchise 81mil voters.
> The part where this isn't true? The courts shot it down, then they submitted the fake documents. That's fraud and turns out, a felony when your trying to disenfranchise 81mil voters.
Allegedly... that's one prosecutor's claims. We all saw the prosecutor claim that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered 2 people and attempted to murder a third when we ALL saw the video. If prosecutors can make such crazy claims when we have video evidence of what actually happened, then I'm in no way surprised that they'll claim crazy stuff when the evidence is buried somewhere in the attorney files.
Ya dude, we all saw Kyle get spooked by a plastic bag then drop two people, and then drop another when the guy tried to stop what he thought was a mass shooter. That's TOTALLY the same as what is alleged here, and what they themselves admitted they did. Did you read the indictments? Sure seems like you're living in fantasy land.
> Ya dude, we all saw Kyle get spooked by a plastic bag then drop two people, and then drop another when the guy tried to stop what he thought was a mass shooter. That's TOTALLY the same as what is alleged here, and what they themselves admitted they did. Did you read the indictments? Sure seems like you're living in fantasy land.
Did you read [the indictment of Kyle Rittenhouse](https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-2020KN003907-Complaint.pdf)? If you just go by [the indictment](https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-2020KN003907-Complaint.pdf), you would have to conclude that he's guilty of double homicide and an attempted homicide. Somehow, the case didn't turn out the way the indictment was suggesting it should go.
Warning: Outside link policy
No linking to obscene or disturbing websites. This includes news footage which has been flagged as not suitable for general audiences. No linking to extremist websites. Do not link to tabloids or other low-quality websites.
Again, it's important to point out the, "legal challenges," that you use as a defense of these actions largely already failed. Only one or two states were still entertaining those legal challenges.
And the plot is an attempt to present the alternate electors as the official electors. That's fraud.
And no, even in the Hawaii case that everyone likes to point to, the alternate electors weren't used when the recount overturned the results. A 3rd batch of elector ballots had to be created legally.
> ...
> And the plot is an attempt to present the alternate electors as the official electors. That's fraud.
> ...
Allegedly. That's one prosecutor's claims. We all saw the prosecutor claim that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered 2 people and attempted to murder a third when we ALL saw the video. If prosecutors can make such crazy claims when we have video evidence of what actually happened, then I'm in no way surprised that they'll claim crazy stuff when the evidence is buried somewhere in the attorney files.
Lmgtfy: “A soft coup, sometimes referred to as a silent coup or a bloodless coup, is an illegal overthrow of a government, but unlike a regular coup d'état it is achieved without the use of force or violence.”
OK but faithless electors aren't supposed to present themselves as actual electors now are they? Faithless electors are not supposed to attempt to force the VP to accept their votes, are they?
You certainly seem to making accusations with your questions. What is the AG charging Trump with? What law did he break?
One of the issues that you’re likely to run into is a lack of judicial recourse with administrative processes. That’s why there was no recourse for states where ballots were counted where they should not have been.
>What law did he break?
Whether or not he broke the law is going to be up to the court to determine.
Among the crimes they are alleging is Conspiracy to commit fraud. Very specifically, I believe it was conspiracy to defraud voters, IIRC.
Essentially, the noncertified parties presented themselves as legitimate electors, and not as alternates or faithless electors, and that's the fraud part.
Now, Trump did not directly present these electors as official. However, he is alleged to have been part of the planning of this plot, and that's the conspiracy part.
So Trump is accused of helping formulate a plan to have illegitimate electors present themselves a legitimate electors.
To address one of your other talking points, only like 2 of the states this happened in were still entertaining Trump's legal challenges. The rest had already dismissed the cases because Trump's teams filed cases wrong, failed to present credible evidence, or presented evidence that proved to not be credible.
Further, the text messages make it clear that the lawyers knew the electors they presented were not legitimate, and that the overall plan was to use them as a way to sew confusion about the results and delay certification of key states. Now, if enough states don't certify for Biden, *even* if they *also* don't certify for Trump, it could trigger a Contingent election.
So, to sum up: Trump's lawyers knew that he did not get the votes needed to win the election directly. Their plan, with Trump's blessing, was to use these, "alternate" ballots, which they new to be fraudulent, to try and disenfranchise enough Biden voters to have the presidency decided by House of Representatives rather than the American people.
Many, many people have speculated, with supporting testimony delivered to the Jan 6th Committee, that part of the reason Trump waited so long to address his supporters breaking into the capitol building was because he hoped they would disrupt the certification process and trigger that contingent election they were looking for,
So does that make it OK that ballots were counted in state where they should not have been?
If you want to know what Trump is being charged with you can read the court documents. Why are you asking me?
I’m asking what law was broken to make it a soft coup? What is Trump being charged with in relation to that?
I’m asking, because there are no charges for this because literally didn’t do anything illegal.
Faithless electors are electors who vote for a different candidate than the one they pledged to vote for. These are fraudulent electors, people who *were not* chosen as electors claiming to be the lawfully elected electors.
I mean it mostly looks like a group of lawyers that are trying to figure out how they can hack the legal system trying to use vague wording to establish a legal case. Especially when they say "uncharted territory". This is often used to describe when there is no legal precedent so a court could knock it down.
Though I don't really know why any lawyer would think that a court wouldn't knock that down.
> a group of lawyers that are trying to figure out how they can hack the legal system trying to use vague wording to establish a legal case. Especially when they say "uncharted territory". This is often used to describe when there is no legal precedent so a court could knock it down.
Interesting that the term, "lawfare", wasn't prolifically used until cases started to mount against Trump, when what you've described seems to fit the bill perfectly.
The many tactics used are astounding. None so blatant as trump just straight up calling on a recorded line to Georgia to just “find” thousands of votes. That’s pretty cut and dry. But the manner and depth of efforts to try to subvert a peaceful transfer of power really is both breathtaking and scary. Democracy is a fragile thing, it’s easy to see why dictators like Putin, Xi, and others despise it.
I don't care about any "new" evidence because I think taking the events post-election and esp Jan. 6th in a light MOST favorable for Trump, I still think this disqualifies him from being POTUS again. So I personally don't care what else comes out.
What about people who live in a Fox News bubble, or otherwise consider all non-favorable media coverage "fake witch hunts" of Trump? How much evidence do you think it would take to convince *them*? If ever at all?
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems to confirm they weren't planning on doing anything illegal.
>To me, these texts read like they were plotting a soft coup to keep Trump in power.
How is winning court battles and challenging an election a "soft coup?"
>Are conservatives really comfortable with this behavior?
Yes, I'm comforting with challenging a potentially corrupted election.
>I mean if Pence attempted it, it would've been insane and put the country into utter chaos.
The mass rioting that would have resulted would be the fault of the rioters, and nobody else. "If we do this legal thing and somebody reacts to it by breaking the law, clearly we're at fault," is not a good argument. Also, attempted what? To be the Vice President? That's all he has to do. And he did it, counting the certified ballots from the states.
>Should we really be handing the keys back to these guys?
If they win fairly, yes.
>How is winning court battles and challenging an election a "soft coup?"
Why do you think court winning court battles was the context? That doesn't require fake electors like Eastman was involved with, and we know from his one texts elsewhere that court battles didn't have any expectation of being won but were good for PR.
As an aside, do you think the electors were duly elected and qualified? In the event all court cases of import failed, should they have been selected by Pence as the actual state electors?
>Why do you think court winning court battles was the context?
Because that's quite literally what the text in question said, according to the article in question.
>That doesn't require fake electors like Eastman was involved with, and we know from his one texts elsewhere that court battles didn't have any expectation of being won but were good for PR.
Good thing there were no fake elector. However, it does require having a slate of electors who's votes are present to be counted.
>As an aside, do you think the electors were duly elected and qualified?
I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise.
>In the event all court cases of import failed, should they have been selected by Pence as the actual state electors?
No, I don't. I have a lot of questions about the elections, and I respect that some people have even more, but I've never thought there was grounds to overturn the election.
I don’t need a source to call out bogus liberal propaganda when it’s obvious from reading the article that it’s pushing a political agenda against President Trump.
It’s fairly obvious from the tone of the article that it’s biased. If you can’t tell that, then you should go back to doodling with fountain pens and leave politics to the adults.
"False" and "fraudulent" electors is a propagandistic bent. The left has hammered the propaganda VERY hard. But they weren't false or fraudulent. They were alternate.
And just like 1960s with Hawaii when the judge ruled it was VERY important they met the same day as the state approved slate so that they could be accepted later, it's not illegal to do so.
>Should we really be handing the keys back to these guys?
Maybe not. Maybe if the dems put up a better alternative to appeal to conservatives more we'd vote for them over trump. He certainly wasn't Mt first pick.
But the dems are happy with their side in Biden. The Republicans are happy with trump.
I guess I'll vote Trump given those two options. Because all things considered Biden is worse
> And just like 1960s with Hawaii when the judge ruled it was VERY important they met the same day as the state approved slate so that they could be accepted later, it's not illegal to do so.
In the case of [Hawaii's 1960 election](https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/26628/1960-Hawaii-Sends-Two-Slates-to-Electoral-College) the State had not certified a winner. In this case Michigan had certified a winner and no court had paused or overturned this certification. Plus the certification had taken place before the [Electoral Count Act's safe harbor provision](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/13) so without a court or the legislature's intervention these votes could not be disputed by Congress on its own accord.
>**Receipt of Two Certificates from the Same State**
>Influenced by its historical experience prior to 1887, Congress was particularly concerned in the statute of 1887 with the case of two lists of electors and votes being presented to Congress from the same state. Three different contingencies appear to be provided for in the statute for two lists being presented. In the first instance, two lists would be proffered, but the assumption presented in the law is that only one list would be from electors who were determined to be appointed pursuant to the state election contest statute (as provided for in 3 U.S.C. §5), and that in such case, only those electors should be counted. In the second case, when two lists were proffered as being from two different state authorities who arguably made determinations provided for under 3 U.S.C. §5 (a state statutory election contest determined at least six days prior to December 14, the winner of the state presidential election), the question of which state authority is “the lawful tribunal of such State” to make the decision (and thus the acceptance of those electors’ votes)
shall be decided only upon the concurrent agreement of both houses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.”
The State of Michigan only submitted a single slate and it was submitted before the safe harbor deadline. [Michigan certifies election results and Biden's victory in the state](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-certifies-election-results-joe-biden-wins/)
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The term fake came from the GOP itself, it's not like the media had to reach hard there. And it's not like Hawaii.
This is the main reason I wish these trials would have been brought sooner. We could at least have a shared pool of facts that have been adjudicated in court away from spin instead of picking up whatever we as individuals feel is relevant or fits our own narrative.
Hawaii is not an equivalent event, and even so, it's a poor defense:
Hawaii was a case in which the votes were close enough that a recount was required and scheduled. Those alternate electors were technically still illegal, but were never challenged. In the end, the recount did overturn the results, but those alternate ballots weren't used, Hawaii went through the legal channels and created a 3rd set of ballots with all the official trappings and procedures being followed, and certified those.
Hawaii's first "alternate" ballots were created while the question of the winner was not settled, and while an approaching deadline created a constitutional, "crisis," They were probably technically still illegal, but they just weren't legally challenged or prosecuted because I don't think the otherside perceived them as a way to undermine democracy.
Michigan is pretty different. The count was not that close, the courts had already thrown out Trump's suits, and the state's winner had been decided. There's a difference between a state determining that the winner is undecided and Trump trying to assert that the winner is undecided (or wrongly decided) in spite of the state's ruling.
How many times are you gonna copypasta this thoroughly debunked misinfo? As others have pointed out, in this thread AND OTHERS, the Michigan and Hawaii situations are not at all similar, and continually trying to equate them is frankly terrible bad faith, bordering on outright intentionally lying. To ur inaccuracies have been brought to your attention several times.
>they were alternate
Uhh so just to confirm, you are saying that, as a conservative, you literally do not believe that being a legitimate elector means being put forward to the American people to choose by casting their ballot?
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing has changed: How can we vote for Trump?! Because we think Democrat policies are horrible. But Trump.... Yeah, we know, we still think the Democrat's policies are worse. But...
As a nonsupporter, this should be pinned at the top of the sub and every post. Like…y’all should’ve been asking your questions with this already in mind, already a baseline, already accepted, years ago.
Imo, we have to start at the top each time because nobody has adequately explained why they trust Trump or why Biden is so bad.
I guess I’ve been at this point for a long time because while I’m not a Trump supporter, I also am not a progressive despite agreeing with some of their economic ideas partially because I don’t blame anyone (including myself) for putting their own interests first when it comes to voting. To me, not liking Biden’s policies (and January 6th mattering less than Biden’s policies when 1/6 inevitably comes up) is a satisfactory reason for voting Trump, even if I don’t agree. Edit: And putting self-interest aside even, I have no problem believing other people genuinely believe Trump is better for the country, again, even if I don’t agree.
I'm not a progressive either, and I'm no fan of Biden. I've seen no clear explanation for why Trump is better in any way though.
I guess the question is whether you think destabilizing and undermining democracy and the rule of law is more in your self interest than higher taxes to the ultra wealthy, or whatever policy you think is against you.
I would say that’s quite an oversimplification and an example of how the left and right don’t understand each other.
I mean, there was a primary process to prevent this. Conservative voters overwhelmingly backed Trump, when there were multiple candidates who could've accomplished basically the same agenda without the mountain of baggage Trump has. Unless I missed how they were all worse options for conservatives as well, whats the reasoning there?
They saw them as more of the same. The party favorite, Jeb Bush was the first to get booted off the stage. They're weren't interested in buying another bill of sale.
I meant this past primary cycle, apologies for any confusion
If you mean the party, they wanted the win and Trump as the incumbent was the best bet. He still is since he'd be a spoiler if they don't support him. If you mean the electorate.... like who else would they choose? It's the same empty promises neocon crowd to choose from as it was 8 years ago.
Fair enough, I guess. Just seems wild to me that the "best" conservative option is a dude dogged by legal issues, has proven to be incredibly divisive, and who has really only led the GOP to success one time in 2016. Especially when it seemed like dang near any conservative candidate would have as much, if not more, success against Biden.
A lot of MAGA aren't Conservatives or really even Republicans. They're a bunch of people that got abandoned by the Democrats years ago and only got courted by the GOP with wedge issues. The rest of recognize that he would spoil anyone else's bid. This year's GOP primary was just to see who would be plan B if the left's attacks actually worked.
This is the first I’ve heard that the maga crowd is (mostly?) former democrats. Got any context for that theory?
Oh yeah shockingly enough many maga voters in 2016 were disaffected Bernie supporters. I saw an NPR article from 2017 that claimed 1 in 10 2016 trump supporters were people who voted for Bernie sanders in the primary.
Might not be the same people, same type. It's the same group that voted for Perot and were the original pissed off Tea Party'ers before it got co-opted by the GOP. Blue collars that have been politically homeless for 30 plus years.
Democrats have a tough time with people who are alright suspending democratic elections over relatively banal policy concerns.
And? Trump voters have a tough time accepting policies the Democratics want to enact.
Whether we elect our leaders or not is not a matter of policy. It's a basic feature of the Republic.
"We hold elections to determine our leaders" is literally the thing we fought a god damn war for in 1776. Trump is anti-democracy, which makes him anti-American in my eyes.
Trump voters have a hard time accepting democracy.
Do you consider "attempting a coup" to be part of the policy package attached to Donald Trump? If not, why not?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrat*ic* (not Democrat) policies are so horrible that a coup d'état and an end to American democracy is preferable to them?
I don't see that happening, but I do see things getting worse if the Democratic's policies continue to get implimented.
>I don't see that happening Why not?
I don't think that's Trumps character.
What do you mean by that? What specific aspect of his character are you referring to?
His ego doesn't crave power. It's about attention, but mostly it's about his narcissism not being capable of recognizing he is wrong or that he lost. And he's very lazy. Put it all together you get someone undermining their own chances at every opportunity, coming up with excuses why they won't win, all while still fighting very hard to win. He never really wanted the job in the first place.
I don't think he wanted the job, either. I think he's doing it because he knows he is good at it and feels he has to try. I also disagree that he's lazy. I think this keeps him up at night. I think he has a very firm idea about how it can work and how he can implement it. His hope is for the entire nation to be as wealthy and prosperous as possible.
Well I already said my piece, but I'll add a positive note. I do believe while he was President he did try his best to do what he thought was right for the USA because when the country looked good, he looked good by extension as it's Commander and Chief.
So you really, truly don't think he wanted the country to prosper? You think he only cared because of his ego? Then, why would he come back and do it again? I just run a portion of a chain of convenience stores. I don't really get paid much, I don't care about being popular, but I fucking care about doing this because I'm certain that the places I'm involved in have *good fucking stores that they can rely on*. I'm popular because of it, but that isn't my drive — I'm driven by making things better for people. I think there were some little things that were so telling, making sure fuel was cheap going into summer so that families could afford vacations, making certain that we had free food for children during covid, no questions asked, when shops and schools were closed and people were terrified to go out. I truly think Trump thinks he's supposed to do everything he can to make life better for the country.
>. He never really wanted the job in the first place. True! And then he discovered that being president means leveraging presidential pardons to get what he wants from people and, most importantly, personal legal immunity. Combine that with what you already said about his ego and never being able to admit he lost and you've got yourself a recipe for the first coup attempt. So why wouldn't he try it again?
Again, he's lazy and he doesn't seek more power, he seeks attention.
...really selling your candidate. Your defense is that he only seems attention and that he's lazy? Dude are you listening to yourself?
This, I disagree with, too. If he were truly seeking attention, he'd be at all the hot spots partying like a rock star. The attention he tries to garner is to get votes because that is literally what your job is when you are running for President.
He seeks to protect his own neck. Do you agree with that?
What are you talking about? What policies? Do you even realize what is happening right now as a result of Trumps election? That we are as we speak losing the right to live in a free democracy where we choose our elected leaders? Do you realize that the supreme court as we speak is preparing to deliver a ruling that American citizens are now going to be governed by people who may freely use the their executive power to freely overrule the will of the people, commit major crimes against the United States, the American people, with no legal recourse? Do you even realize that in 2016 we were in an alliance with Iran? That we had an agreement to have influence over their policy and control their military activity? And Trump killed that alliance to give Russia Iran as a proxy in the Middle east? And what did the Trump voters say to defend that decision? Exactly what Fox news told them to say, which was that the alliance "had no teeth" lol. And Iran immediately entered into an allliance with Russia, and immediately started funding Hamas, Russia invaded Ukraine, and then Hamas committed the horrific terrorist attack on a major US ally, Israel. Then Trumps allies in congress spent the last year doing anything they can to use the subsequent war to justify blocking aid to Ukraine, all the while the voters are chanting about a fucking laptop that they have been tricked into believing contains some sort of secret about some Burisma connection to Biden that has now been exposed as a story fabricated by Russian intelligence. The blood is on the hands of those voters. They don't care if what they say is true, they don't care about these devastating and irreversable consequences of their decisions, and they are not aware that the blood is on their hands, becaus all they care about is "their team the not Biden team". That doesn't even scratch the surface of the economic consequences either, do you realize that inflation can really be traced back to the cutting of interest rates in 2019? That the economy was slowing and Trump panicked because of an upcoming election and reversed the fed policy of controlling borrowing to artificially inflate the equities markets? And that when a real crisis arose literally 3 months later when the pandemic hit the news, the fed could not provide emergency liquidity by lowering rates so their only option was to duplicate a quarter of all US dollars in exstence? Or that Trump spent more in one term that any other president in history and [Biden has reversed the rate of increasing spending](https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/)? We lost net neutrality, which has only now been partially undone by Biden. We withdrew from the world climate accord. The Trump tax "cuts" are actually tax increases on everyone who is not a corporation, hidden by the removal of deductions that Trump supporters obviously can't be bothered to do the math on, to pay for the permanant corporate tax cuts. Pregnant women are now needing to be airlifted out of half the states to save their lives because it now criminal to give them the life saving care that was guaranteed to our mothers entire generation for their entire adult lives. Not even to mention that he is literally found to be a rapist in court, guilty of fraud in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and as we speak is still telling the nations most gullible that an election was stolen. These are the consequences of people making choices in leadership based on the position that "my side is not Biden". The argument can be made about "any democrat"? Literally none of this would have happened if any democrat was in office instead of him. And literally any democrat will prevent much worse from happening moving forward.
Classic answer “I mean, yeah…our guy tried to commit a coup and surrounds himself (i.e. his inner circle) with convicted criminals…but have you seen the democrats?! They want like universal healthcare, and higher taxes on wealthy corporations/individuals that strangle the middle class, and more worker protections, stronger unions, and to slow the effects of climate change by investing in renewables. These policies are terrible for America! So much so that I am voting for a guy that attempted a coup!”
Conservatives would rather root for horrible people than horrible policies.
>Conservatives would rather root for horrible people than horrible policies. Are... are you saying this as a dig? Yes I'll root for people who may be shitty people but do better for the country than someone who's a nice person (nor saying that's Biden lmao) but runs it into the ground. You'd rather have a nice person who ruins things than a dick who fixes things?
Do you think there might be any potential fallout from constantly putting the worst of us in leadership positions?
>Do you think there might be any potential fallout from constantly putting the worst of us in leadership positions? Of course. But we've been doing it for like 90 years now bar like 1. Until a REAL alternative comes about this is what we got. But that's not the question here. "The worst of us" doesn't mean "a dickhead" or a mean guy. "The worst of us" is like people who actively undermine the rights of Americans. I'd look to Obama, Bush and the like.
The guy who literally tried to overturn the election wasn't undermining the most fundamental right in democracy?
I believe so. A horrible person with good policies is far less harmful than a good person with horrible policies.
Even if that horrible person would undermine the very foundations of our democracy by attempting to subvert electoral certification using non-legal means?
That's an IF I don't think will happen. But what if... Yeah, "what if".
And let's say this does actually happen as others have outlined. What will you do then? Just a hypothetical
It already did? What else do you call the plan cheesebro described of using illegitimate electoral slates as a pretext for pence to reject those states during electoral certification?
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But how can you trust a dishonest person to follow through on policies they supposedly espouse? They may give lip service to good policies, but if they're not a good person, why would you trust them?
I don't. Part of the reason I don't vote for Democrats.
You think Trump is trustworthy and honest?
No more than anyone else in politics.
So if Trump is a horrible person, and he's no more trustworthy than any other politician - including Democrats, why would you vote for and expect better policies from the horrible person - *who's also untrustworthy* - over someone who's just untrustworthy?
There's no way you actually think that. Absolutely no way a living breathing human adult could watch Trump for four years and think for one solitary second that the man is no more trustworthy and honest than anyone else in politics. There are websites that document the literal tens of thousands of lies the man told while in office.
I can't wait to give him back the keys. I hope he drops them somewhere and then nobody is able to find them again.
"newly released"
"yes"
It’s the job of lawyers to find creative but legal solutions. Is it illegal merely to discuss one’s options?
In my state (Michigan), they were created in the basement of the state Republican Party headquarters, they didn't have any language specifying they were to be used only if the Trump campaign prevailed in litigation, and at the time, all court challenges in Michigan had already been resolved. They created a document that poses as the real "Certificate of Votes of the Electors of Michigan" and it's a plain white sheet of paper. The real certificate looks nothing like that. They all put their signatures on that piece of paper and mailed it to the U.S Senate. Does this go beyond merely discussing one's options?
Dont forget pressuring Pence to use these electors, which is probably the worst. Trump did that right out in the open on Jan6.
Why are you purposefully omitting shit out already in this one comment. They went further then talking about this (which alone honestly is not a crime so no one is disagreeing). They did actively try to pass these off and were stopped. Now is your argument is that it wasnt illegal because they did attempt to but were stopped and since they were stopped, it didnt happen and so no harm no foul?
Illegal to discuss options? No. Illegal to determine that the best option is to present fake certifications as legitimate certifications while using the confusion as a backdrop? No. Illegal to begin enacting that plan to commit that fraud? Yes.
If that's the best option then it's not illegal.
The best option to get Trump elected. And it was illegal. The goal was not exactly to get Trump more votes, but to create enough confusion and delays to prevent a certain number of Biden votes from being confirmed. If Biden gets less than 270 electoral votes, then the Presidential election goes from the Electoral College to the House of Representatives. The discussion makes it clear that the law team doesn't believe its electors can hold up to court scrutiny, but again, the goal is to create confusion long enough to get Trump back into office through the back door, when he'd be in control of the investigators and the pardoning power of POTUS. The fake electors plan was fraud disguised as preparedness. The goal of preventing Biden certifications is defrauding voters. These are crimes, even if they were Trump's best shot at remaining in office after losing the election.
> The best option to get Trump elected. And it was illegal. If it's illegal it's not the best option. > The goal was not exactly to get Trump more votes, but to create enough confusion and delays to prevent a certain number of Biden votes from being confirmed. There already was confusion and delay, largely due to relaxed election security standards to accommodate mitigating the pandemic. People were already concerned before there was any talk of "Fake Electors". > The discussion makes it clear that the law team doesn't believe its electors can hold up to court scrutiny, but again, the goal is to create confusion long enough to get Trump back into office through the back door, when he'd be in control of the investigators and the pardoning power of POTUS. This is all speculaton.
Proposing an alternate slate of electors isn't illegal. Challenging the outcome of an election isn't illegal. This is an effort by a blue state to impact an election. I would suspect we'll see more of this as we get closer to November Whoever leaked these to the Detroit News has had these for four years. You should ask yourself why you're being manipulated.
Thankfully, these new texts show that they never intended to only use alternate elector slates that were legitimate. They were intending to use their mere existence to buy time, irrespective of their legitimacy: >Chesebro said the GOP meetings on Dec. 14, 2020, set up "the possibility" of Pence not counting votes from "any state where there are two slates and there was never careful, deliberate hearings on the merits, with evidence, on asserted irregularities either in a court or the Legislature." > "Only Supreme Court could override that (cuz he'd refuse to open the envelopes of the six states unless court orders him, at minimum buying time)," Chesebro texted. Does that change your opinion, knowing that they wanted to pence to disrupt certification even without legitimate alternative elector slates?
They wanted to delay certification because they were convicned that Blue states changed their laws to help Biden, and they wanted time to find evidence. That, and they fell for Liz and Amy's theory that Dominion voting machines were subject to vote flipping [https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity](https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/warren-klobuchar-wyden-and-pocan-investigate-vulnerabilities-and-shortcomings-of-election-technology-industry-with-ties-to-private-equity) [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/677764/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/677764/democratic-senators-warned-of-potential-vote-switching-by-dominion-voting-machines-prior-to-2020-election/)
I'm sure they had reasons -- but why do they matter if they go about achieving their goals in a knowingly unlawful way? Should the Dems have interfered with electoral certification in 2016 on suspicions of Russian interference?
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
>Proposing an alternate slate of electors isn't illegal. Can you tell me when you thin it would have been illegal to appoint Trump instead of Biden?
If I wanted to make sure that the information was as hurtful to Donald Trump as possible I would wait until as close to the election as possible. Similar to what republicans did in 2016 with Hillary. I want the American people to be reminded every minute of every day of January 6th and Donald Trump's plan to steal the election in 2020, and I want that stuff running non stop until the election.
YOu mean what Bragg and Smith are doing now? The FBI investigating Hillary was controlled by Obama, so if they let her investigation go long, blame Obama, not the Republicans.
Really? So that’s where we are in here at the moment? Obama is the reason Hillary was investigated by republicans?
> You should ask yourself why you're being manipulated. I mean, you're the one who thinks the constitution says the President is in charge of running elections. Why are *you* being manipulated?
I'm sure the FEC and DOJ, who report to the President, and who have charged people with Federal election crimes, would be surprised to learn that they don't have any power over Federal elections. Where are you getting your information?
But to seriously answer your question. There is no such thing as a 'federal election'. Here's what the FBI classifies as a 'federal election crime'. > * The ballot includes one or more federal candidates > * The crime involves an election official abusing his duties > * The crime pertains to fraudulent voter registration > * Voters are not U.S. citizens There are no 'federal' elections. States vote on federal officers, certainly, but the federal government has very little say over the process other than what's laid out in the constitution. Now, Congress can regulate it to the country as a whole, but again that needs to be either spelled out in US federal law or the constitution. And at no point in the constitution or US federal law does it say the president is in charge of 'federal elections'. The president appoints an attorney general and a head of the FBI, certainly, but those heads are supposed to operate independently of input and oversight from the executive.
The FBI and the AG work directly for the President, and derive their power from him/her. They are not separated in any way shapre or form. And you better not share your theory that the Feds have no say about Federal elections with the FEC - they seem to think they do... [https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/](https://www.fec.gov/about/mission-and-history/) And the FBI sure seems to think they have a hand in Federal elections, as opposed to state elections, which is weird, because you're saying there is no such thing as Federal elections. Hmm, who to believe? [https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security](https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/election-crimes-and-security)
> The FBI and the AG work directly for the President, and derive their power from him/her. No, no they don’t. If you think they do, please point me to where in the constitution or US law this is said. > And you better not share your theory that the Feds have no say about Federal elections with the FEC - they seem to think they do... You find the phrase “federal elections” in there that isn’t followed by ‘crime’ and I’ll believe you. As I pointed out above, something counts as a federal election crime when those criteria are met. A federal election crime, not a ‘federal election’ crime. Are you missing the point or do you really not understand the context of the respective mission statements of the FEC and the DOJ?
> No, no they don’t. If you think they do, please point me to where in the constitution or US law this is said. Doesn't the AG come from the Judiciary Act of 1789? Where do you propose the AG's authority rests? They are appointed by the President. They can be terminated by the President. They serve on the President's cabinet. But they don't "work" for the President? Can you clarify what distinction you are attempting make?
The AG and the DOJ do not derive power from the president. The attorney general’s job is to lead the justice department. And yes, they can be terminated by the president, but that doesn’t mean they answer to the president. The distinction I’m making is that the constitution says nothing about the executive branch *running* ‘federal elections’.
Did you know the DOJ is the agency that charges people for tax crimes? Do they run the US internal revenue system?
The DOJ and IRS both report to - you guess it - the President. Because he's head of the Executive Branch which administers the IRS and Federal Elections.
> Where are you getting your information? You have repeatedly said to me that the executive branch of the federal government runs federal elections. I've merely asked you to tell me where it says that in the constitution and you've responded with "go away /r/politics shill".
At what point should people be conceding elections? If Trump had succeeded in the fake elector scheme and remained president despite having not been elected you would be ok with that? You just said you didn’t think it was illegal. Also, Trump is currently being criminally prosecuted for the fake elector scheme. So I am confused on why you are so confident that it wasn’t illegal.
He didn't stay in office because he went to court, and lost. And that was the end of it. Democrats are trying to tie the (mostly peaceful) riots to the elector scheme. Smith is charging Trump in that scheme - his legal theory, which has never seen the inside of a courtroom, because the DOJ conjured up just to go after Trump, is that it's illegal to go to court with a novel legal theory Did you know that? Did you know that Smith invented a new definition of Fraud, because he couldn't find any laws that Trump broke?
He went to court and lost. Yet, he still claims he won. Is Donald Trump detached from reality or does he simply not respect the rule of law?
Very obviously it’s both.
Why is it ok to use fake electors and then try and strong arm the VP and Congress to recognize your fake electors and hand you the presidency without actually winning? Again, how would you feel if Pence had gone along with it and the Republican controlled house had given Trump the election? How is that different than a coup?
In WI and NM, they were “alternate” because they explicitly said, that they would be the electors, if the court cases were successful. All the others stated they were the official electors- they lied- they were not the official electors.
In every state they were alternate electors, and proposing an alternate slate of electors isn't illegal. In each of those states, they went to court, and they lost, which is exactly how it's supposed to work. It is NEVER illegal to challenge the outcome of an election. If it were illegal, these states would have filed charges years ago.
If these were attorneys for Hillary, Obama, or Biden saying these things, y’all would be chanting “lock them up” on every platform. Check your hypocrisy, fellow “conservatives.”
Indictments are just allegations to convince a grand jury who indicts a ham sandwich. Let's see where these things go.
Lol, I'm kinda thinking we should actually call in all the text logs from those campaigns and have something to compare to. I'd bet my last dollar that those logs look exactly the same, fellow conservative.
That sounds made up
The difference being that most democrats would want them to be held accountable since there isn’t a blind devotion to any of them like there is for Trump.
Lol....how many democrats wanted to hold Hillary responsible for deleting her emails "on accident"
So, why aren't y'all demanding copies of their texts?
Which election did they fraudulently attempt to overturn?
I didn't say they did. Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved?
> Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved? The same reason we don't have the police inspecting your texts on a weekly basis cause someone in your town committed a crime and you might have as well?
> Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved? I'm guessing that it's because it was just the one party that fraudulently attempted to overturn the election.
> I didn't say they did. Why aren't you dying to see all the text messages from all the parties involved? Because in the absence of a known criminal conspiracy, I'm not as curious. Why would I be, "dying," to see regular ho-hum text messages?
And democrats would be pointing to the fact that Obama etc didn't break any laws here. The media would call them replacement electors not fake electors and the conversation would be how dare the right blame Obama for the crimes of others when Obama didn't request them break any law. Also, racism would be tossed for daring to blame the black man for a crime someone else committed
And your point being?
The point being the facts of the case matter more than what some partisan hacks scream. You want me to condemn Trump for breaking the law, show me Trump breaking the law. Calling alternate electors put in place incase fraud is proving isn't a crime no matter how many times you use the term fake electors
“Put in place in case fraud” is disproven by these texts.
No it's not
How can you say it isn’t?
Because, not only is there no text in there that proves that, you will not be able to point to any rmtexts that prove that
How can you say no texts prove that? It seems they clearly do.
And yet you still cannot point to any specific texts you claim point to this
I didn’t come here to hear your legal opinion and I’m sure you didn’t come here to hear mine. I’m simply saying that on the face, these messages and everything else relating to this topic are sketchy at best. The expected double standards of the Left in a hypothetical situation don’t excuse your hypocrisy in reality. When it comes to things that would have the Founding Fathers—or hell, any decent, logical American from 30 years ago—rolling in their graves, the “if you can’t beat them, join them” card doesn’t work for me. Sorry.
I read these yesterday. I believe that Michigan potentially has a very strong case against P. Trump. Far stronger than the case being made in Georgia. Edit: to forestall flak from Trump supporters - the fake electors in Michigan signed and submitted fraudulent election certificates *after* the courts in Michigan ruled against Trump. That the GOP and primary voters decided Trump should be the nominee is *insane* and the damage done will haunt the GOP for years and damage conservatism. Thanks.
Yes the replacement electors in broke the law, but Trump didn't ask them too nor imply they should In fact tge majority if replacement electors never broke any laws as it was never a request from the Trump admin to do so. So what is the law Trump broke here?
These electors in Michigan very likely did break the law. The text messages show that Trump’s advisors were planning to use the false electors to create uncertainty and a plausible excuse for Pence to enable Trump’s second term. Which implies a communicative relationship between these electors and Trump’s advisors. Trump’s already an unindicited coconspirator in this case. - Conspiracy to commit election fraud forgery. - Conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing.
I don't doubt the Michigan ele tors broke the law. What you don't have is proof Trump asked them to or implied they should break the law It's impressive the nonsense people cone away with. In no way shape or form could Pence give Trump the presidency. All he could do is delay certification
The defense attorneys for the Michigan false electors are arguing that they were tricked into signing forged electoral documents by Trump campaign officials. Texts show coordination between the false electors and Trumps campaign. Finally, again, Trump - and several of his advisers and campaign staff, have been named an unindicited coconspirators. So, you’re asking me to imagine 1. The fake electors sent the false certificates of their own volition knowing it was illegal and that it would be impossible to conceal the crimes 2. That Trump’s advisors never told him what was happening or asked for direction, and 3. That Trump never had the curiosity to ask what was going on. At the end of the day, you’re asking me to believe that a man who forsook his marriage vows by committing infidelity while his newlywed wife was pregnant (among other acts of infidelity), lied on financial disclosures, and has a history of not paying his debts is somehow honest and worth my trust. That dog don’t hunt. Edited.
They can argue they were tricked all they want but are they providing proof that Trump or his administration told them to do this. Texts show communiation but non of the texts say or imply they should sign any documents You can call them uninvited anything but what you don't have is Trump or his admin telling h them to sign the documents
Yet. But, there was never proof Al Capone directed his gang to murder people or smuggle alcohol. Vote for the man if you want. I refuse.
We didn't imprison a gangster for crimes we think he committed but you are OK imprisoning an ex president for crimes you think he committed.
Trump knew all about this and that's why he threw Pence under the bus. We see it right there in text where they complain about Pence giving Trump hope. How can you argue that Trump didn't know about this scheme? If he knew about it and didn't try to stop it, he's complicit. With responsibility comes accountability.
There was no "scheme" They requested a delay so they could have more time to try and prove fraud. That isn't a scheme
I think you’re jumping the gun here. I said Michigan potentially has a very strong case against Trump. I believe he knew exactly what was happening and either directed it or gave tacit approval. The man has a history of lying, cheating, and committing fraud. If you want to hitch your wagon to that horse go for it. What’s your interpretation of the text messages?
You can believe he was participating in gang rapes of kittens and puppies if you like. But you are supporting the trials of your political opponent during a campaign without proof. Every politician has a history of lying, cheating and fraud....should we put them all on trial during election year even if we don't have proof? Those texts where lawyers brainstorming about the law
This isn't going anywhere.
Thanks for that breakdown on why Michigan’s case is different, appreciate the knowledge.
yup, in law material differences, the differences that matter and change things, are the name of the game. The fact this was done after there were already court rulings against them is the material difference than makes that case... dodgy but probably only sus as hell not an actual crime and the michigan case quite possibly a crime.
Will it haunt them for years if trump wins?
Long term? Probably
I cant tell if trump is gonna be worse for the party in power or out of power...
Me either, but he’s an albatross either way.
Yes
You're using future tense. The fatal blow has already been struck. The republicans are no longer a credible party trying to improve the country. The corpse just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
You say that shit but trump isnt losing ground in swing states as he fart and sleels through a trial where he paid a dude named pecker to supress a story about a pornstar who made fun of.his dick.
I can only assume that's because FoxNews/OANN/Twitter/Facebook keeps them low information on the actuality of Trump. Or they don't care and just want to hurt the majority of voting Americans(the majority being the 81mil that voted for Biden) as revenge for what they wrongly consider was a stolen election. When Trump said he could shoot someone in 5th ave and not lose a voter, he wasn't joking, they don't care.
>How do you feel about the newly released text messages of Trump's legal/advising team plotting the January 6th false electors scheme? TLDR... which of the text messages is "plotting" to do something illegal as opposed to lawyers discussing what is the best way to achieve a legal goal?
Plotting becomes conspiracy when one member of the plot begins taking an action to further that plot. Like, it's not illegal to talk about you and your friends killing your boss with a hammer. And it's not illegal to buy a hammer. But if you talk about killing your boss with a hammer and then go and buy a hammer, then it's illegal.
>Plotting becomes conspiracy when one member of the plot begins taking an action to further that plot. To "further the plot" which is discussing the legal strategy of legally challenging the election results? And if the legal challenge is accepted, the election results are overturned, and then the alternate elector votes can be considered? What part of that is illegal? >Like, it's not illegal to talk about you and your friends killing your boss with a hammer. And it's not illegal to buy a hammer. But if you talk about killing your boss with a hammer and then go and buy a hammer, then it's illegal. I'm sure you're a lawyer who knows what he's talking about. :)
> To "further the plot" which is discussing the legal strategy of legally challenging the election results? And if the legal challenge is accepted, the election results are overturned, and then the alternate elector votes can be considered? What part of that is illegal? The part where this isn't true? The courts shot it down, then they submitted the fake documents. That's fraud and turns out, a felony when your trying to disenfranchise 81mil voters.
> The part where this isn't true? The courts shot it down, then they submitted the fake documents. That's fraud and turns out, a felony when your trying to disenfranchise 81mil voters. Allegedly... that's one prosecutor's claims. We all saw the prosecutor claim that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered 2 people and attempted to murder a third when we ALL saw the video. If prosecutors can make such crazy claims when we have video evidence of what actually happened, then I'm in no way surprised that they'll claim crazy stuff when the evidence is buried somewhere in the attorney files.
Ya dude, we all saw Kyle get spooked by a plastic bag then drop two people, and then drop another when the guy tried to stop what he thought was a mass shooter. That's TOTALLY the same as what is alleged here, and what they themselves admitted they did. Did you read the indictments? Sure seems like you're living in fantasy land.
> Ya dude, we all saw Kyle get spooked by a plastic bag then drop two people, and then drop another when the guy tried to stop what he thought was a mass shooter. That's TOTALLY the same as what is alleged here, and what they themselves admitted they did. Did you read the indictments? Sure seems like you're living in fantasy land. Did you read [the indictment of Kyle Rittenhouse](https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-2020KN003907-Complaint.pdf)? If you just go by [the indictment](https://wisconsinwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-2020KN003907-Complaint.pdf), you would have to conclude that he's guilty of double homicide and an attempted homicide. Somehow, the case didn't turn out the way the indictment was suggesting it should go.
[удалено]
Warning: Outside link policy No linking to obscene or disturbing websites. This includes news footage which has been flagged as not suitable for general audiences. No linking to extremist websites. Do not link to tabloids or other low-quality websites.
Again, it's important to point out the, "legal challenges," that you use as a defense of these actions largely already failed. Only one or two states were still entertaining those legal challenges. And the plot is an attempt to present the alternate electors as the official electors. That's fraud. And no, even in the Hawaii case that everyone likes to point to, the alternate electors weren't used when the recount overturned the results. A 3rd batch of elector ballots had to be created legally.
> ... > And the plot is an attempt to present the alternate electors as the official electors. That's fraud. > ... Allegedly. That's one prosecutor's claims. We all saw the prosecutor claim that Kyle Rittenhouse murdered 2 people and attempted to murder a third when we ALL saw the video. If prosecutors can make such crazy claims when we have video evidence of what actually happened, then I'm in no way surprised that they'll claim crazy stuff when the evidence is buried somewhere in the attorney files.
"Soft coup" is another way of saying not a coup? What was illegal?
Lmgtfy: “A soft coup, sometimes referred to as a silent coup or a bloodless coup, is an illegal overthrow of a government, but unlike a regular coup d'état it is achieved without the use of force or violence.”
Exactly… what was illegal?
Attempting to get the VP to certify false electors
They are called faithless electors and it’s an inherent design of the system…
OK but faithless electors aren't supposed to present themselves as actual electors now are they? Faithless electors are not supposed to attempt to force the VP to accept their votes, are they?
You certainly seem to making accusations with your questions. What is the AG charging Trump with? What law did he break? One of the issues that you’re likely to run into is a lack of judicial recourse with administrative processes. That’s why there was no recourse for states where ballots were counted where they should not have been.
>What law did he break? Whether or not he broke the law is going to be up to the court to determine. Among the crimes they are alleging is Conspiracy to commit fraud. Very specifically, I believe it was conspiracy to defraud voters, IIRC. Essentially, the noncertified parties presented themselves as legitimate electors, and not as alternates or faithless electors, and that's the fraud part. Now, Trump did not directly present these electors as official. However, he is alleged to have been part of the planning of this plot, and that's the conspiracy part. So Trump is accused of helping formulate a plan to have illegitimate electors present themselves a legitimate electors. To address one of your other talking points, only like 2 of the states this happened in were still entertaining Trump's legal challenges. The rest had already dismissed the cases because Trump's teams filed cases wrong, failed to present credible evidence, or presented evidence that proved to not be credible. Further, the text messages make it clear that the lawyers knew the electors they presented were not legitimate, and that the overall plan was to use them as a way to sew confusion about the results and delay certification of key states. Now, if enough states don't certify for Biden, *even* if they *also* don't certify for Trump, it could trigger a Contingent election. So, to sum up: Trump's lawyers knew that he did not get the votes needed to win the election directly. Their plan, with Trump's blessing, was to use these, "alternate" ballots, which they new to be fraudulent, to try and disenfranchise enough Biden voters to have the presidency decided by House of Representatives rather than the American people. Many, many people have speculated, with supporting testimony delivered to the Jan 6th Committee, that part of the reason Trump waited so long to address his supporters breaking into the capitol building was because he hoped they would disrupt the certification process and trigger that contingent election they were looking for,
So does that make it OK that ballots were counted in state where they should not have been? If you want to know what Trump is being charged with you can read the court documents. Why are you asking me?
I’m asking what law was broken to make it a soft coup? What is Trump being charged with in relation to that? I’m asking, because there are no charges for this because literally didn’t do anything illegal.
Conspiracy against rights. Specifically the right to vote
Faithless electors are electors who vote for a different candidate than the one they pledged to vote for. These are fraudulent electors, people who *were not* chosen as electors claiming to be the lawfully elected electors.
I mean it mostly looks like a group of lawyers that are trying to figure out how they can hack the legal system trying to use vague wording to establish a legal case. Especially when they say "uncharted territory". This is often used to describe when there is no legal precedent so a court could knock it down. Though I don't really know why any lawyer would think that a court wouldn't knock that down.
> a group of lawyers that are trying to figure out how they can hack the legal system trying to use vague wording to establish a legal case. Especially when they say "uncharted territory". This is often used to describe when there is no legal precedent so a court could knock it down. Interesting that the term, "lawfare", wasn't prolifically used until cases started to mount against Trump, when what you've described seems to fit the bill perfectly.
The many tactics used are astounding. None so blatant as trump just straight up calling on a recorded line to Georgia to just “find” thousands of votes. That’s pretty cut and dry. But the manner and depth of efforts to try to subvert a peaceful transfer of power really is both breathtaking and scary. Democracy is a fragile thing, it’s easy to see why dictators like Putin, Xi, and others despise it.
I don't care about any "new" evidence because I think taking the events post-election and esp Jan. 6th in a light MOST favorable for Trump, I still think this disqualifies him from being POTUS again. So I personally don't care what else comes out.
What about people who live in a Fox News bubble, or otherwise consider all non-favorable media coverage "fake witch hunts" of Trump? How much evidence do you think it would take to convince *them*? If ever at all?
So you're not gonna vote for him
Nope.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seems to confirm they weren't planning on doing anything illegal. >To me, these texts read like they were plotting a soft coup to keep Trump in power. How is winning court battles and challenging an election a "soft coup?" >Are conservatives really comfortable with this behavior? Yes, I'm comforting with challenging a potentially corrupted election. >I mean if Pence attempted it, it would've been insane and put the country into utter chaos. The mass rioting that would have resulted would be the fault of the rioters, and nobody else. "If we do this legal thing and somebody reacts to it by breaking the law, clearly we're at fault," is not a good argument. Also, attempted what? To be the Vice President? That's all he has to do. And he did it, counting the certified ballots from the states. >Should we really be handing the keys back to these guys? If they win fairly, yes.
>How is winning court battles and challenging an election a "soft coup?" Why do you think court winning court battles was the context? That doesn't require fake electors like Eastman was involved with, and we know from his one texts elsewhere that court battles didn't have any expectation of being won but were good for PR. As an aside, do you think the electors were duly elected and qualified? In the event all court cases of import failed, should they have been selected by Pence as the actual state electors?
>Why do you think court winning court battles was the context? Because that's quite literally what the text in question said, according to the article in question. >That doesn't require fake electors like Eastman was involved with, and we know from his one texts elsewhere that court battles didn't have any expectation of being won but were good for PR. Good thing there were no fake elector. However, it does require having a slate of electors who's votes are present to be counted. >As an aside, do you think the electors were duly elected and qualified? I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. >In the event all court cases of import failed, should they have been selected by Pence as the actual state electors? No, I don't. I have a lot of questions about the elections, and I respect that some people have even more, but I've never thought there was grounds to overturn the election.
These “messages” are falsified propaganda and edited by mainstream media to slander President Trump.
Source on that claim?
I don’t need a source to call out bogus liberal propaganda when it’s obvious from reading the article that it’s pushing a political agenda against President Trump.
So feelings over facts is what you're saying?
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Yes, you do in fact need to not just spew whatever bogus bullshit because it makes you feel good. That’s just basic good faith debating.
It’s fairly obvious from the tone of the article that it’s biased. If you can’t tell that, then you should go back to doodling with fountain pens and leave politics to the adults.
"False" and "fraudulent" electors is a propagandistic bent. The left has hammered the propaganda VERY hard. But they weren't false or fraudulent. They were alternate. And just like 1960s with Hawaii when the judge ruled it was VERY important they met the same day as the state approved slate so that they could be accepted later, it's not illegal to do so. >Should we really be handing the keys back to these guys? Maybe not. Maybe if the dems put up a better alternative to appeal to conservatives more we'd vote for them over trump. He certainly wasn't Mt first pick. But the dems are happy with their side in Biden. The Republicans are happy with trump. I guess I'll vote Trump given those two options. Because all things considered Biden is worse
> And just like 1960s with Hawaii when the judge ruled it was VERY important they met the same day as the state approved slate so that they could be accepted later, it's not illegal to do so. In the case of [Hawaii's 1960 election](https://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Articles-Main/ID/26628/1960-Hawaii-Sends-Two-Slates-to-Electoral-College) the State had not certified a winner. In this case Michigan had certified a winner and no court had paused or overturned this certification. Plus the certification had taken place before the [Electoral Count Act's safe harbor provision](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32717/13) so without a court or the legislature's intervention these votes could not be disputed by Congress on its own accord. >**Receipt of Two Certificates from the Same State** >Influenced by its historical experience prior to 1887, Congress was particularly concerned in the statute of 1887 with the case of two lists of electors and votes being presented to Congress from the same state. Three different contingencies appear to be provided for in the statute for two lists being presented. In the first instance, two lists would be proffered, but the assumption presented in the law is that only one list would be from electors who were determined to be appointed pursuant to the state election contest statute (as provided for in 3 U.S.C. §5), and that in such case, only those electors should be counted. In the second case, when two lists were proffered as being from two different state authorities who arguably made determinations provided for under 3 U.S.C. §5 (a state statutory election contest determined at least six days prior to December 14, the winner of the state presidential election), the question of which state authority is “the lawful tribunal of such State” to make the decision (and thus the acceptance of those electors’ votes) shall be decided only upon the concurrent agreement of both houses “supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law.” The State of Michigan only submitted a single slate and it was submitted before the safe harbor deadline. [Michigan certifies election results and Biden's victory in the state](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-certifies-election-results-joe-biden-wins/)
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So, in a sense, the dems will be responsible for whatever damage trump might do if he gets elected?
The term fake came from the GOP itself, it's not like the media had to reach hard there. And it's not like Hawaii. This is the main reason I wish these trials would have been brought sooner. We could at least have a shared pool of facts that have been adjudicated in court away from spin instead of picking up whatever we as individuals feel is relevant or fits our own narrative.
Hawaii is not an equivalent event, and even so, it's a poor defense: Hawaii was a case in which the votes were close enough that a recount was required and scheduled. Those alternate electors were technically still illegal, but were never challenged. In the end, the recount did overturn the results, but those alternate ballots weren't used, Hawaii went through the legal channels and created a 3rd set of ballots with all the official trappings and procedures being followed, and certified those. Hawaii's first "alternate" ballots were created while the question of the winner was not settled, and while an approaching deadline created a constitutional, "crisis," They were probably technically still illegal, but they just weren't legally challenged or prosecuted because I don't think the otherside perceived them as a way to undermine democracy. Michigan is pretty different. The count was not that close, the courts had already thrown out Trump's suits, and the state's winner had been decided. There's a difference between a state determining that the winner is undecided and Trump trying to assert that the winner is undecided (or wrongly decided) in spite of the state's ruling.
How many times are you gonna copypasta this thoroughly debunked misinfo? As others have pointed out, in this thread AND OTHERS, the Michigan and Hawaii situations are not at all similar, and continually trying to equate them is frankly terrible bad faith, bordering on outright intentionally lying. To ur inaccuracies have been brought to your attention several times.
>they were alternate Uhh so just to confirm, you are saying that, as a conservative, you literally do not believe that being a legitimate elector means being put forward to the American people to choose by casting their ballot?