Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Nick
I suppose we will have to see what any late request to grant cert looks like. But the critical comments on the link I provided make it clear that they have missed the boat. And the absence of any further entry on the docket at this stage shows that SCOTUS will not be taking any initiative themselves to look at granting cert.
There might not be too many left in the GOP if the cult goes.
Probably still quite a few left, but the cult could be a pivotal enough part of the coalition to make it risky to jettison them.
Down-ticket GOP candidates outperforming Trump would seem to indicate that there are quite a few voters willing to support the party, their only objection being to him.
I suppose we will have to see what any late request to grant cert looks like. But the critical comments on the link I provided make it clear that they have missed the boat. . . .
Jenna Ellis’s tweet was misleading.
I have little if any doubt that the boat has been missed on cert being granted. That’s not the nit I’m picking here.
Jenna Ellis’s tweet—and I think it’s symptomatic of so many things that are wrong that such focus is being given to a tweet—was correct insofar as she said SCOTUS only denied injunctive relief, not cert. What she doesn’t say is that cert hasn’t been fought yet, and she does arguably give the impression that such a petition is pending. As for “still pending,” while she may be technically correct in that the docket is still open, there is no pending motion or petition before the Court. I wouldn’t so much say she’s lying as that she’s choosing words carefully knowing the conclusions that will be drawn.
The nit for me here is that by the time her nit got translated through Dan Abrams (not someone on my go-to list, I will admit) to the statement in this thread, it had transformed into a statement that was not clearly wrong: “still pending” vs. “still on the docket.” And it also wasn’t clear in the post on this thread that what she was being accused of getting wrong was the “still pending/still on the docket” part and not the injunction, not cert denied part.
I’ll admit it’s a nit. But it’s a nit that comes from decades of seeing the media and others describe court actions in ways that are simply wrong or that miss the mark just enough to cause misunderstanding. Frankly, it’s why I rarely rely on what someone in the media reports about court action in a case like this, unless that someone in the media is someone like Nina Totenberg or Dahlia Lithwick. It’s like a game of Telephone—things get distorted pretty quickly.
Down-ticket GOP candidates outperforming Trump would seem to indicate that there are quite a few voters willing to support the party, their only objection being to him.
This is true. Historically, the Republican Party hasn't really been all that bad, whereas the Democrats (to quote Ricky Ricardo) have some 'splainin' to do. It's only lately, when the Republicans have become the party of the rich and privileged (and, under you-know-who, the crackpots) that the Democrats have stepped into the breach and championed the poor and the oppressed.
I'm sure that, minus you-know-who and his ilk, the Republican Party would attract some who are Democrats only because, let's face it, there ain't nothing else good to be.
What will be fun to watch is the likes of Romney, Cruz, etc. who weren't afraid to expose you-know-who as the worthless pile of sh*t that he is, so long as he was not the candidate -- but couldn't wait to be first to plant their lips firmly on his you-know-what when it was clear he would get the nomination.
Let's see how fast, if at all, they detach their lips once it's clear he is indeed a loser, as we always knew. I predict a "giant sucking sound," as Ross Perot so famously said.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Fair enough, Nick, I understand your precision and caution. Probably my fault. I should have criticised pending in my first post rather than the absence of anything on the docket. That would have been more precise on my part.
My impatience is probably showing. Ellis and Giuliani continue to give their client false hope because they know that’s what he wants to hear. Or, alternatively, support him in his fund raising grift by keeping the legal show on the road. Which would be even more cynical. They don’t appear to have any concerns about the cost to US democracy of this continuing deception of the faithful.
Cruz in particular has been a disgraceful turncoat. When running for the nomination there were apparently no words strong enough to convey his hatred and contempt for Trump. He did take a few weeks to reverse his views but since then has sold out completely.
Down-ticket GOP candidates outperforming Trump would seem to indicate that there are quite a few voters willing to support the party, their only objection being to him.
This is true. Historically, the Republican Party hasn't really been all that bad, whereas the Democrats (to quote Ricky Ricardo) have some 'splainin' to do. It's only lately, when the Republicans have become the party of the rich and privileged (and, under you-know-who, the crackpots) that the Democrats have stepped into the breach and championed the poor and the oppressed.
“Historically”? When were these halcyon days - more than 40 years ago? And for all their faults, Democrats have championed the poor at least since the New Deal.
Historically, the Republican Party hasn't really been all that bad, whereas the Democrats (to quote Ricky Ricardo) have some 'splainin' to do. It's only lately, when the Republicans have become the party of the rich and privileged (and, under you-know-who, the crackpots) that the Democrats have stepped into the breach and championed the poor and the oppressed.
"Historically" and "lately" are doing so much work in that paragraph they deserve overtime pay. The current Trumpified version of the Republican party with its white resentment, authoritarianism, and contempt for democracy is where the GOP has been heading since at least Reagan, if not Nixon. (Republicans have been party of big business, a.k.a. "the rich and privileged" since at least the Harding administration.) Donald Trump just gave them permission to openly be who they are.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I might be wrong, Croesos, but I think the combination of blatant lying, doubling down, and bullying by social media is uniquely Trump.
What puzzles me is how effective these tactics have proved to be in developing the loyalty of the base.
I might be wrong, Croesos, but I think the combination of blatant lying, doubling down, and bullying by social media is uniquely Trump.
Let me introduce you to the Republican party's propaganda wing, Fox News, OANN, and hate radio. Oh, and here's Mr. Rush Limbaugh. And over there is disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich. He's got a list. Way in the back there's Senator Joe McCarthy. He also says he has a list, but it's really a dry cleaning receipt.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Trump isn't particularly unique, the only thing that's changed since McCarthy's day is what constitutes "social media".
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Fair enough.
I do recognise that Trump is an end product of long term trends. The use of social media is relatively new as is the increased development of right wing propaganda as an alternative facts environment in contrast to mainstream media.
The use of social media is relatively new as is the increased development of right wing propaganda as an alternative facts environment in contrast to mainstream media.
Don't you think a large part of that is because you can observe the process more closely in the age of internet news than you ever could when it was all on 80s/90s regional talk radio?
*Intentional reference to the Star Trek: TOS episode "The Alternative Factor". Lazarus is a man with an anti-matter opposite. They're in a constant battle. Lazarus has a chance to be free, but his opposite might destroy the universe. So Lazarus goes back to their eternal fight. The universe is saved. Then Kirk sadly says, "But what of Lazarus?"
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Someone observed that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats belief in democracy and the Republicans don’t. And there is the evidence.
The Texas case is truly appalling in law. Let’s see what the Supreme Court make of it. I’ve got everything crossed.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
:votive:
I agree with your first paragraph, as long as we're talking about the Congressional Republican *hierarchy*, and not rank-and-file members. Individual Republicans can be good, decent people who just have different ideas than Democrats do.
At this particular moment, I think the names of every single one of them who knew what T is, but kept enabling him and playing Pretend with him, should be listed in high school and college history books, and also put on a monument that very clearly says "these are the bad ones; they're seditious traitors; don't be like them, ever; but do feel free to throw anything you like at their names".
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
:votive:
Yes, that bothers me, too. Maybe my joke about Delaware's law suit is not as farfetched as I had hoped. Union? We don't need no stinkin' union. We will all just go our separate ways and leave the world to the kind intentions of Vlad Putin.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
:votive:
Yes, that bothers me, too. Maybe my joke about Delaware's law suit is not as farfetched as I had hoped. Union? We don't need no stinkin' union. We will all just go our separate ways and leave the world to the kind intentions of Vlad Putin.
Split into three or four regions, but only for the purposes of competing in the Olympic Games please.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
Surely once an election is over there are no toss-ups?
Yeah, I was gonna say something like "...states that were considered toss-ups in the period before the election was over", but it would have kinda disrupted the flow of my post.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
The latter.
Thanks.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I got it, Croesos. Accurate description. Shows the extent of the Trump grip.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
I still question the 270toWin map referenced above. I have lived in many of those states. In no way do I see them as seditionists. Many of those states could have gone for Biden before the election.
Regards the argument that Kamala is not a citizen because her parents were not citizens is an old, tired argument that has no standing in the constitution. Our 14th amendment clearly states that all people born within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens, period. The 14th was written to counter the argument that former slaves could not be citizens because their forebearers were not citizens (i.e. from Africa). In other words, it is a racist argument.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
Well, I think I understood how you said you were using the colours, but it just wasn't clear to me if the labeling on the map was somehow connected to that. But now I know it wasn't, so thanks for the explanation.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I wish you would find a better way to describe said states than "seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy." The overwhelming majority of people in those states had nothing to do with the stupid interstate lawsuit, have no way of preventing or withdrawing the thing, and may loathe it just as strongly as you do. It only takes one or two idiots in particular offices to "join" the whole fucking state to the stupid side of the lawsuit, and our only recourse against said idiots is to try to vote them out in the next election (if, in fact, they are not appointees, which are even harder to get rid of).
Sincerely,
a seditionist who has betrayed the very idea of American democracy (NOT)
a seditionist who has betrayed the very idea of American democracy (NOT)
How do you think public opinion stands in your state? The national media is quite good at finding seemingly ordinary citizens from those states who think that Trump won the election and it's being stolen from him. Is there widespread support for the actions of your state leadership here, widespread opposition, or do most people just not care because they think it's irrelevant nonsense that won't affect them and will go away?
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I wish you would find a better way to describe said states than "seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy." The overwhelming majority of people in those states had nothing to do with the stupid interstate lawsuit, have no way of preventing or withdrawing the thing, and may loathe it just as strongly as you do.
Okay, would you prefer "states that routinely put seditionists who are willing to betray the very idea of American democracy into high office"? Because I'm willing to make that alteration.
I'll also note that the seditionist-in-whatever-degree states all cast a plurality of their presidential votes for Donald Trump, meaning that they tacitly endorsed his judgment on matters like this.
All those "brown" states depend on federal dollars for government services. The blue states are actually paying for the brown states to exist. As mentioned above though many of the residents of those states just want this all to end. The AG of those states are Republican and have a lot of latitude in what they want to take to the court, meaning they can sign on to a suit without the authorization of the state legislature, let alone the governor. This does not mean the whole state is seditious.
a seditionist who has betrayed the very idea of American democracy (NOT)
How do you think public opinion stands in your state? The national media is quite good at finding seemingly ordinary citizens from those states who think that Trump won the election and it's being stolen from him. Is there widespread support for the actions of your state leadership here, widespread opposition, or do most people just not care because they think it's irrelevant nonsense that won't affect them and will go away?
There's the usual situation. Which is to say, cities tend toward the Democrats and all that goes with them, and rural areas are the opposite. What in that entitles you or anybody to label an entire state seditionist? None of us ordinary non-states(wo)men have any say in what the idiots get up to this moment. We can punish them later, but we're stuck with them now. And I doubt any of us was sufficiently foresighted to predict THIS particular idiocy, and which if any of our state leaders would be fuckstard enough to actually do it, no matter which party people belonged to.
None of us ordinary non-states(wo)men have any say in what the idiots get up to this moment. We can punish them later, but we're stuck with them now. And I doubt any of us was sufficiently foresighted to predict THIS particular idiocy, and which if any of our state leaders would be fuckstard enough to actually do it, no matter which party people belonged to.
I think there is a truth in what Croesus puts: that the states they call brown states are "seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American Democracy." The people who control how these states act have induced seditious actions, so those states are seditious. I am sure not every Southerner agreed with the decisions which led to secession in the nineteenth century. Their states were still in rebellion.
However, I agree that this is not the most conciliatory of characterisations.
There's the usual situation. Which is to say, cities tend toward the Democrats and all that goes with them, and rural areas are the opposite.
Sure - I suppose I was really asking whether there was much support for this sedition among Republican voters. Are those voters cheering these actions on, or are they saying "we lost the vote. Let's try and be more persuasive next time."
And if Joe Republican is opposed to this, will he do anything about it?
You'd have to do a poll, as anecdata won't cut it here. But it's worth noting that quite a few Republicans, as well as former Republicans, voted for Biden. I myself voted a nearly straight Democratic ticket.
But it's worth noting that quite a few Republicans, as well as former Republicans, voted for Biden.
Had this been true, Biden would have won in a landslide. Exit polls indicate this is hardly the case - unsurprisingly, the fraction of Republicans who voted for Biden (6%) is about the same as the fraction of Democrats who voted for Trump (5%).
But it's worth noting that quite a few Republicans, as well as former Republicans, voted for Biden.
Had this been true, Biden would have won in a landslide. Exit polls indicate this is hardly the case - unsurprisingly, the fraction of Republicans who voted for Biden (6%) is about the same as the fraction of Democrats who voted for Trump (5%).
Right. My understanding is that the Democrats' improved numbers compared to 2016 is due mostly to a higher turnout among their supporters, not to Republicans switching sides.
How does that gel with the notion I picked up somewhere that votes for Biden did not necessarily turn into down-ticket votes for Democrats, hence the knife-edged Senate.
How does that gel with the notion I picked up somewhere that votes for Biden did not necessarily turn into down-ticket votes for Democrats, hence the knife-edged Senate.
Registered "Independent" voters, a good chunk of whom were recently Republicans, swung for Biden but not necessarily for Democrats generally.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
The Pennsylvania rebuttal describes the Texas appeal as 'a seditious abuse of the judicial process'. And the prime responsibility for that rests with the Texas AG. For the other States who have joined the appeal, the prime responsibility rests with their AGs. As a Shipmate I do think their behaviour is seditious.
But we’ve had this argument so many times in different forms In my opinion, generalisations which include all members of a people group in a fault because the fault is clearly there in other members of that people group spread the collective guilt too far. It happens in colloquial speech so often that we don’t see it. But in our written word based discussions I think it pays us to be more precise.
I fully accept Dave W’s observations. From what I have seen the great majority of GOP supporters have accepted the untruth about wholesale fraud and therefore see the Texas appeal as proper. They will also see a floor fight over confirmation of the EC vote as proper. They are either blind to the possibility that they are supporting sedition. or they simply don’t care what means are used to keep Trump in power.
If as I suspect the SCOTUS rejects the appeal (with or without a hearing) then the Trump appointees will simply be added to the growing list of RINOs. Traitors to the cause. The grip Trump has on so many people’s hearts and minds is remarkable.
Comments
I suppose we will have to see what any late request to grant cert looks like. But the critical comments on the link I provided make it clear that they have missed the boat. And the absence of any further entry on the docket at this stage shows that SCOTUS will not be taking any initiative themselves to look at granting cert.
Jenna Ellis’s tweet was misleading.
Probably still quite a few left, but the cult could be a pivotal enough part of the coalition to make it risky to jettison them.
Down-ticket GOP candidates outperforming Trump would seem to indicate that there are quite a few voters willing to support the party, their only objection being to him.
Jenna Ellis’s tweet—and I think it’s symptomatic of so many things that are wrong that such focus is being given to a tweet—was correct insofar as she said SCOTUS only denied injunctive relief, not cert. What she doesn’t say is that cert hasn’t been fought yet, and she does arguably give the impression that such a petition is pending. As for “still pending,” while she may be technically correct in that the docket is still open, there is no pending motion or petition before the Court. I wouldn’t so much say she’s lying as that she’s choosing words carefully knowing the conclusions that will be drawn.
The nit for me here is that by the time her nit got translated through Dan Abrams (not someone on my go-to list, I will admit) to the statement in this thread, it had transformed into a statement that was not clearly wrong: “still pending” vs. “still on the docket.” And it also wasn’t clear in the post on this thread that what she was being accused of getting wrong was the “still pending/still on the docket” part and not the injunction, not cert denied part.
I’ll admit it’s a nit. But it’s a nit that comes from decades of seeing the media and others describe court actions in ways that are simply wrong or that miss the mark just enough to cause misunderstanding. Frankly, it’s why I rarely rely on what someone in the media reports about court action in a case like this, unless that someone in the media is someone like Nina Totenberg or Dahlia Lithwick. It’s like a game of Telephone—things get distorted pretty quickly.
I'm sure that, minus you-know-who and his ilk, the Republican Party would attract some who are Democrats only because, let's face it, there ain't nothing else good to be.
What will be fun to watch is the likes of Romney, Cruz, etc. who weren't afraid to expose you-know-who as the worthless pile of sh*t that he is, so long as he was not the candidate -- but couldn't wait to be first to plant their lips firmly on his you-know-what when it was clear he would get the nomination.
Let's see how fast, if at all, they detach their lips once it's clear he is indeed a loser, as we always knew. I predict a "giant sucking sound," as Ross Perot so famously said.
My impatience is probably showing. Ellis and Giuliani continue to give their client false hope because they know that’s what he wants to hear. Or, alternatively, support him in his fund raising grift by keeping the legal show on the road. Which would be even more cynical. They don’t appear to have any concerns about the cost to US democracy of this continuing deception of the faithful.
"Historically" and "lately" are doing so much work in that paragraph they deserve overtime pay. The current Trumpified version of the Republican party with its white resentment, authoritarianism, and contempt for democracy is where the GOP has been heading since at least Reagan, if not Nixon. (Republicans have been party of big business, a.k.a. "the rich and privileged" since at least the Harding administration.) Donald Trump just gave them permission to openly be who they are.
What puzzles me is how effective these tactics have proved to be in developing the loyalty of the base.
Let me introduce you to the Republican party's propaganda wing, Fox News, OANN, and hate radio. Oh, and here's Mr. Rush Limbaugh. And over there is disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich. He's got a list. Way in the back there's Senator Joe McCarthy. He also says he has a list, but it's really a dry cleaning receipt.
Those are just the ones off the top of my head. Trump isn't particularly unique, the only thing that's changed since McCarthy's day is what constitutes "social media".
I do recognise that Trump is an end product of long term trends. The use of social media is relatively new as is the increased development of right wing propaganda as an alternative facts environment in contrast to mainstream media.
Don't you think a large part of that is because you can observe the process more closely in the age of internet news than you ever could when it was all on 80s/90s regional talk radio?
Trump and 17 states back Texas bid to undo his election loss at Supreme Court (Reuters, via Yahoo).
*Intentional reference to the Star Trek: TOS episode "The Alternative Factor". Lazarus is a man with an anti-matter opposite. They're in a constant battle. Lazarus has a chance to be free, but his opposite might destroy the universe. So Lazarus goes back to their eternal fight. The universe is saved. Then Kirk sadly says, "But what of Lazarus?"
The Texas case is truly appalling in law. Let’s see what the Supreme Court make of it. I’ve got everything crossed.
I think what scares me is that 17 states are involved...
:votive:
I agree with your first paragraph, as long as we're talking about the Congressional Republican *hierarchy*, and not rank-and-file members. Individual Republicans can be good, decent people who just have different ideas than Democrats do.
At this particular moment, I think the names of every single one of them who knew what T is, but kept enabling him and playing Pretend with him, should be listed in high school and college history books, and also put on a monument that very clearly says "these are the bad ones; they're seditious traitors; don't be like them, ever; but do feel free to throw anything you like at their names".
Grrrr.
Split into three or four regions, but only for the purposes of competing in the Olympic Games please.
Eighteen, if you count original plaintiff Texas. Here's a map to help you keep them straight. Blue states are Democratic, red states are Republican, and brown states are seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy. (One of the fundamental aspects of democracy is acceptance of losing.)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the brown states the ones the ones that have joined the Texas lawsuit? According to the explanation, they were "toss-ups" in the election.
Ignore the caption. It's just that an electoral college calculation map has been repurposed.
Okay. But I'm still a little confused. Were all the toss-up states coincidentally states that have joined the lawsuits? Or have the colours on the various states been changed to fit the new purpose?
The latter.
Yeah, I was gonna say something like "...states that were considered toss-ups in the period before the election was over", but it would have kinda disrupted the flow of my post.
Thanks.
The 270toWin website will let you make your own custom map. Unfortunately what it won't do is allow you to re-label the key, hence what I thought was a thorough description of how I was using the various colors on my custom map.
Regards the argument that Kamala is not a citizen because her parents were not citizens is an old, tired argument that has no standing in the constitution. Our 14th amendment clearly states that all people born within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens, period. The 14th was written to counter the argument that former slaves could not be citizens because their forebearers were not citizens (i.e. from Africa). In other words, it is a racist argument.
Well, I think I understood how you said you were using the colours, but it just wasn't clear to me if the labeling on the map was somehow connected to that. But now I know it wasn't, so thanks for the explanation.
I wish you would find a better way to describe said states than "seditionists who have betrayed the very idea of American democracy." The overwhelming majority of people in those states had nothing to do with the stupid interstate lawsuit, have no way of preventing or withdrawing the thing, and may loathe it just as strongly as you do. It only takes one or two idiots in particular offices to "join" the whole fucking state to the stupid side of the lawsuit, and our only recourse against said idiots is to try to vote them out in the next election (if, in fact, they are not appointees, which are even harder to get rid of).
Sincerely,
a seditionist who has betrayed the very idea of American democracy (NOT)
How do you think public opinion stands in your state? The national media is quite good at finding seemingly ordinary citizens from those states who think that Trump won the election and it's being stolen from him. Is there widespread support for the actions of your state leadership here, widespread opposition, or do most people just not care because they think it's irrelevant nonsense that won't affect them and will go away?
Okay, would you prefer "states that routinely put seditionists who are willing to betray the very idea of American democracy into high office"? Because I'm willing to make that alteration.
I'll also note that the seditionist-in-whatever-degree states all cast a plurality of their presidential votes for Donald Trump, meaning that they tacitly endorsed his judgment on matters like this.
There's the usual situation. Which is to say, cities tend toward the Democrats and all that goes with them, and rural areas are the opposite. What in that entitles you or anybody to label an entire state seditionist? None of us ordinary non-states(wo)men have any say in what the idiots get up to this moment. We can punish them later, but we're stuck with them now. And I doubt any of us was sufficiently foresighted to predict THIS particular idiocy, and which if any of our state leaders would be fuckstard enough to actually do it, no matter which party people belonged to.
However, I agree that this is not the most conciliatory of characterisations.
Sure - I suppose I was really asking whether there was much support for this sedition among Republican voters. Are those voters cheering these actions on, or are they saying "we lost the vote. Let's try and be more persuasive next time."
And if Joe Republican is opposed to this, will he do anything about it?
That is called "doing something about it."
Right. My understanding is that the Democrats' improved numbers compared to 2016 is due mostly to a higher turnout among their supporters, not to Republicans switching sides.
Registered "Independent" voters, a good chunk of whom were recently Republicans, swung for Biden but not necessarily for Democrats generally.
But we’ve had this argument so many times in different forms In my opinion, generalisations which include all members of a people group in a fault because the fault is clearly there in other members of that people group spread the collective guilt too far. It happens in colloquial speech so often that we don’t see it. But in our written word based discussions I think it pays us to be more precise.
I fully accept Dave W’s observations. From what I have seen the great majority of GOP supporters have accepted the untruth about wholesale fraud and therefore see the Texas appeal as proper. They will also see a floor fight over confirmation of the EC vote as proper. They are either blind to the possibility that they are supporting sedition. or they simply don’t care what means are used to keep Trump in power.
If as I suspect the SCOTUS rejects the appeal (with or without a hearing) then the Trump appointees will simply be added to the growing list of RINOs. Traitors to the cause. The grip Trump has on so many people’s hearts and minds is remarkable.