Trump files motion to argue his case to SC

[TomC]

The red hatted morons are not thinking this through. So a lot of red states secede. Kiss your Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid goodbye. No more federal dollars for education. Nor for infrastructure. Roads, bridges et al. You state just got clobbered by a massive hurricane? No help from Uncle Sam. No EPA stopping wholesale polluters from trashing your state. No more military. No jets, tanks, warships, bases, generous military retirement plans. No generous government grants to Universities for medical research, science or other useful research programs. Cooperation with the FBI, DEA, and other law enforcement agencies is now a big problem. These morons are not thinking this out.

This is exactly why I find southern succesionists so pitiful. They might secede, but they won't succeed without federal taxpayer dollars. Dollars that mostly come from states like Washington and Massachusetts and Illinois.
And especially California.

If Texas proposed a public referendum on secession from the USA, Congress would point out that Texans would no longer qualify for SSI or highway funds, to name a few. Secessionist proposals would collapse like a Trump lawsuit.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

So for the people yapping “not my president” for the last four years, sedition? While it may offend Zippy’s authoritarian urges, filing a lawsuit is NOT an illegal act. Even if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Which president are you referring to that said "not my president"? We are talking about the president of the United States here; he's not only a citizen. And which Citizen(s) filed law suits to overturn an election beyond requesting recounts anyway? I'm not sure what you're basing your comparison on.

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

You guys seem to be talking past each other. You seemed to be asking if the people who said "not my president" were participating in seditious behavior. And Gospel seemed to be saying that there's a difference between "yapping 'not my president'" and actually filing flimsy lawsuits trying to overturn an election.

So, the question goes to you in this: which president, or even high level government employees, be it federal or state, attempted to overthrow Trump's election win through lawsuits (not including recount request)?

It's yet another false equivalence to compare people whinging about "not my president' and what Trump and his acolytes have been doing this election season. There's really no comparison.

 

[jab]

delete "right-wing", and replace "fascist" with "authoritarian" or "cult-of-the-leader", and I agree with your statement. Otherwise it is a bit one-sided, and America-at-the-present-moment centric.

I didn't make up the term "right wing authoritarianism." People in the relevant fields of research did. There is a reason for "right wing" to be included in the phrase.

I can't believe how many times this has been explained here for years now, over and over.

Right wing authoritarianism arises from a distinct set of cognitive traits, behaviors, and concepts: authority worship; insistence on tradition; insistence on conformity for everyone and not just the group; willingness to punish outgroups in whatever heinous ways the authority figures deem appropriate; belief that the outside world is evil, untrustworthy, dangerous; belief in the moral superiority of the in-group and its belief system; belief that doubt and questioning are sinful, forbidden; willingness to police each other; callousness toward members of outgroups; willingness to subsume one's own conscience to that of authority figures and/or authoritative texts.

The Bible or Mein Kampf, America's ideological and political disease is right wing authoritarianism, like it or not.

Yes, but you made a generalization about authoritarianism that does limit itself to contemporary America and includes little or none of the qualifying characteristics you add in your response, in which you establish a clear definition of "right-wing authoritarianism". The traits you name in your original post are traits of authoritarianism and its followers in general; and, it seems to me that, except for "insistence on tradition", the traits you list in your definition are traits of authoritarianism in general.

 

[Elixir]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

On what basis is Trump precluded from nuking Iran, declaring martial law and ordering the military to arrest Joe Biden and all the democrats in congress who have opposed him?
Being a citizen doesn't mean he loses all his powers as President!
</RW Stoopid>

 

[blastula]

So for the people yapping “not my president” for the last four years, sedition? While it may offend Zippy’s authoritarian urges, filing a lawsuit is NOT an illegal act. Even if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Which president are you referring to that said "not my president"? We are talking about the president of the United States here; he's not only a citizen. And which Citizen(s) filed law suits to overturn an election beyond requesting recounts anyway? I'm not sure what you're basing your comparison on.

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you send to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly qq interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

 

[blastula]

So for the people yapping “not my president” for the last four years, sedition? While it may offend Zippy’s authoritarian urges, filing a lawsuit is NOT an illegal act. Even if the lawsuit is frivolous.

Which president are you referring to that said "not my president"? We are talking about the president of the United States here; he's not only a citizen. And which Citizen(s) filed law suits to overturn an election beyond requesting recounts anyway? I'm not sure what you're basing your comparison on.

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you seem to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

 

[Angry Floof]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you seem to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

The phrase "seditious abuse of the judicial process" is sticking in Trausti's craw.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Ever since Nov. 7 it has not been a case of Trump simply asserting his rights -- it has been pathology, pure and simple -- a delusional, vainglorious, infantile man spewing out lies about the country he's supposedly "leading". No outgoing President in our history has done the disgraceful (and petty) things this man has done. A shameful era for Republicans, who by a large majority support this.

 

[TomC]

Ever since Nov. 7 it has not been a case of Trump simply asserting his rights -- it has been pathology, pure and simple -- a delusional, vainglorious, infantile man spewing out lies about the country he's supposedly "leading". No outgoing President in our history has done the disgraceful (and petty) things this man has done. A shameful era for Republicans, who by a large majority support this.

I grew up in a nonpartisan home. I've never registered with a political party. I used to be very nonpartisan.

Back in the late 90s I started noticing this trend in the GOP. Partisanship above patriotism became more and more dominant. It became more and more clear to me that the problem the GOP had was shrinking demographics. The U.S. electorate, as a whole, was less and less supportive of GOP candidates and policies. By 2008 the GOP was a complete disaster. A black kid from Chicago beat a decorated war hero for the White House. The GOP couldn't afford ethical standards anymore if they wanted to keep their policy goals. They picked their policies over ethics and democracy.

The result is Trump's behavior. In 2016, the GOP passed over some highly qualified candidates in favor of Trump. I believe that's because Trump(and Putin) figured out how to game the rigged system in the primaries.

Both primaries were rigged. The Democrat's was rigged to promote the pretense that it was populist. The Republican's was rigged to promote the pretense that the strongest candidate emerged early in the process. I'm willing to bet that the Democrats regretted all those "pledged delegates", and the Republicans wished they'd had more of them. But, that's all water under the bridge.

We've got what we've got. And it ain't pretty.

Frankly, if anybody wants to play the blame game I'd put as much responsibility on the BernieBros who couldn't be bothered voting for a douchebag like Clinton, effectively voting for Trump. Doesn't matter if someone voted 3rd party or stayed home or wrote in Bernie Sanders. If you didn't vote for Clinton you voted for Trump, even if it was the indirect method of voting for "whoever wins" which was Trump. I'm confident that if the BernieBros ignored polls giving her 90+% odds of winning, and gone out to vote for her, we'd all have been spared the Trump administration. But, again, it's water under the bridge.

The question is "Now what?". Will real conservatives and leftists join together to repair the damage done in the last few years? Or will they continue to snipe impotently at each other while the wealthy elites continue looting the USA?

Stay tuned for more drama!

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.).

Irrespective of merit? If that isn't the mother of all asterisks.

Person A: Trump's lawsuits are frivolous and without merit!
Person B: Why can't Trump file a lawsuit, regardless if it is frivolous and without merit?

Let's put Trausti's quote into its honest context.

Regardless of how knowingly frivolous and meritless, on what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit aiming at overturning a Presidential election?

 

[ideologyhunter]

(Referring to TomC in post #89): I appreciate what you're saying but I'm pessimistic on any solution where effort comes from the right. The % of them that dare to criticize the big T on anything is miniscule. And just now, they're gearing up to scream "Austerity!!!" for 4 years (hopefully 8.)

 

[TomC]

(Referring to TomC in post #89): I appreciate what you're saying but I'm pessimistic on any solution where effort comes from the right. The % of them that dare to criticize the big T on anything is miniscule. And just now, they're gearing up to scream "Austerity!!!" for 4 years (hopefully 8.)

But it wasn't always like this!

It is all too true now. Maybe the GOP is too far gone to pull their butts out of the weeds. I hope not. There used to Republicans I greatly respected and admired. But it might be true now.

Tom

 

[Trausti]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.).

Irrespective of merit? If that isn't the mother of all asterisks.

Person A: Trump's lawsuits are frivolous and without merit!
Person B: Why can't Trump file a lawsuit, regardless if it is frivolous and without merit?

Let's put Trausti's quote into its honest context.

Regardless of how knowingly frivolous and meritless, on what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit aiming at overturning a Presidential election?

Filing a frivolous lawsuit is not illegal. No one goes to jail for that. The court just dismisses it. Maybe the opposing party gets fees.

 

[Trausti]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you seem to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

So your moving the goalposts?

 

[Trausti]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you seem to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

The phrase "seditious abuse of the judicial process" is sticking in Trausti's craw.

Well, yeah. You just made that up. As you have no actual argument, any other word salad Humpty Dumpty?

 

[TomC]

Irrespective of merit? If that isn't the mother of all asterisks.

Person A: Trump's lawsuits are frivolous and without merit!
Person B: Why can't Trump file a lawsuit, regardless if it is frivolous and without merit?

Let's put Trausti's quote into its honest context.

Filing a frivolous lawsuit is not illegal. No one goes to jail for that. The court just dismisses it. Maybe the opposing party gets fees.

No, but "Filing a frivolous lawsuit " can be seditious. Filing a frivolous lawsuit to set the stage for a military coup is definitely seditious.

So, why do you think that Trump and his supporters filed all those lawsuits? If they had evidence for widespread fraud they could have presented it in court and in the media. But they haven't done that, now have they?

There's no evidence that Trump's claims to have won the election are anything but sedition. He wants to overturn a free and fair election, done by the rules, because it doesn't suit his belief that he's a Winner. When he's demonstrably not a Winner. He's never won an election in his life.

He out played Clinton in a rigged game, once, but that's not the same as winning an election. We Americans don't elect the president. Trump can hire winning lawyers when he wants to win a lawsuit. But that doesn't work when you're filing suit in SCOTUS to overturn the American system for choosing presidents. Trump can fire Manaforte, he can fire Comey, he can fire Sessions, he can fire Espy, he can fire Barr, but he can't fire everyone who sees him for what he is and says so.

He cannot fire SCOTUS judges. He can't fire Pelosi. He can't fire Fox. He can't fire the House of Representatives.
He can't even fire McConnell now. McConnell could pull a Mitchell and leave Trump in the dust.


Regardless of what Trump did in the business world, as a politician he's a total and complete loser. He's never won an election and he's the first one term President in decades. Even Bush II managed to win an election as the incumbent.


Let's face it. Trump is dragging the GOP down the drain. The GOP lost the popular election by 2.8 million in 2016. They lost by 7 million in 2020. Why would they want to lose by 10 million in 2024?
Tom

 

[Angry Floof]

The phrase "seditious abuse of the judicial process" is sticking in Trausti's craw.

Well, yeah. You just made that up. As you have no actual argument, any other word salad Humpty Dumpty?

Those are not my words. They're the words of a judge. And they're not word salad. They have meanings and they make sense, as you know.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Let's face it. Trump is dragging the GOP down the drain. The GOP lost the popular election by 2.8 million in 2016. They lost by 7 million in 2020. Why would they want to lose by 10 million in 2024?
Tom

Lindsey Graham on Fox last month:
"If Republicans don't challenge and change the US election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again."
That's worth pondering. Who can read it and find a benevolent meaning in it? Does he mean he wishes to draw in more voters and give each voter a free and fair chance to vote? We've just seen the Republicans challenging and attempting to change things for six weeks, and it wasn't about any of those purposes. It was malevolent, and it depended on lies and conspiracy theories, and it inspired threats of violence and violent demonstrations. Republican pols and think tanks read the same demographics that the rest of us do. We can predict what they will do in future elections, and we can surmise that they will get better at it. Just imagine if Biden had won by 700,000 instead of 7,000,000 votes.

 

[Angry Floof]

Let's face it. Trump is dragging the GOP down the drain. The GOP lost the popular election by 2.8 million in 2016. They lost by 7 million in 2020. Why would they want to lose by 10 million in 2024?
Tom

Lindsey Graham on Fox last month:
"If Republicans don't challenge and change the US election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again."
That's worth pondering. Who can read it and find a benevolent meaning in it? Does he mean he wishes to draw in more voters and give each voter a free and fair chance to vote? We've just seen the Republicans challenging and attempting to change things for six weeks, and it wasn't about any of those purposes. It was malevolent, and it depended on lies and conspiracy theories, and it inspired threats of violence and violent demonstrations. Republican pols and think tanks read the same demographics that the rest of us do. We can predict what they will do in future elections, and we can surmise that they will get better at it. Just imagine if Biden had won by 700,000 instead of 7,000,000 votes.

I don't understand how they want to change it. Do they not want a democracy?

I mean, I know they don't actually want democracy. They're a social dominance cult. They absolutely do not want everyone to have an equal right to vote. But obviously they are telling themselves a different story that only appears to be one that supports democratic values. I'm just not sure what that story is that they think is so convincing.

 

[blastula]

On what basis is Trump precluded from filing a lawsuit? (Irrespective of merit.). Don’t hand wave or use ad hominem. Being president doesn’t mean he loses his rights as a citizen or political candidate.

"It doesn't say he can't do it" is not the righteous argument you seem to think it is. And he doesn't have a right to file bad faith lawsuits, everyone knows he's just forum shopping for judges and state officials as corrupt as he is. He's not just filing suits, he's personally telling state officials they should corruptly interfere in the election for him and publicly berating them for not doing so. He's mad that Barr didn't launch any election investigations nor announce a Hunter Biden investigation. It's the same thing he was impeached for, and what the Senate should have convicted him for. If they had, the country would be a lot better off now.

Or maybe it's that you don't even realize he lost the election?

So your moving the goalposts?

Am I? Specifically where?