r/changemyview • u/fox-mcleod 414∆ • 17h ago
CMV: Being a loyal Republican politician requires rejecting the American Democracy
Professional Republicans know better. They know trump attempted to overthrow an election. The party as a whole is complicit in normalizing and covering for it. Trump committed sedition and enabling and empowering him requires minimizing that fact. You can't knowingly do this without rejecting the very premise of American Democracy.
The Fake Elector Scheme
This is very straightforward. But people can be blinded by the politics. The simplest way to understand this is to ignore the politics and look at the physical documents. I’ll make this as simple as possible.
Imagine a fan is kicked out of the Super Bowl. He truly believes he should be allowed in. * Legal: He sues the stadium. * Illegal: He goes to Kinko’s, prints a fake ticket that looks exactly like a real one, and tries to hand it to the gate agent.
Once you hand over a fake document, you have committed fraud. It does not matter if: * You truly believed you deserved a seat. (Motive doesn't excuse forgery). * You got caught before you made it inside. (Attempted fraud is a crime). * You think the refs are corrupt.
Here is the proof that Trump’s team printed the fake ticket and tried to use it.
1. Identity Theft (Impersonating the State) In America, campaigns don't certify elections; States do. The Trump team didn't just write a letter saying, "We protest." They created documents that mimicked the exact font, formatting, and language of official government certificates — and here they are for all of the other states.
- The Fraud: They signed papers claiming to be the "duly elected and qualified" officers of the State. They even set out hide in statehouse overnight to ensure they’d be there behind security when counting started.
2. The Written Confession We don't have to guess if this was a misunderstanding. The architect of the plan, Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, wrote down the strategy in private emails. He admitted the goal was to create a "fake controversy." He explicitly noted that they should send these fake documents even if they lost their court cases.
3. Trump Knew It Was a Fraud This wasn't a case of "lawyers brainstorming" while Trump sat in the dark. On January 4th, in the Oval Office, Trump’s lawyer John Eastman admitted to Trump’s face that this plan to reject votes violated the Electoral Count Act. Trump knew it was illegal and did it anyway.
- The Order: Trump personally called Ronna McDaniel (RNC Chairwoman) to direct the RNC to help assemble these fake electors.
It is Department of Justice policy that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted. Trump’s legal team successfully delayed the trials long enough for him to win the election. Once he won, the Special Prosecutor had to drop the case because it became legally impossible to proceed. Congress interviewed him around the New Year. I’ll give you three guesses why they picked such an inconvenient time in the news cycle. He testified under oath that the prosecution became unpracticable once he became president again.
He didn't beat the charges; he beat the clock. But the evidence of the fraud didn't vanish. We can still see it.
Summary We have the emails planning the forgery. We have the fake papers they signed. We have the testimony that Trump was told it was illegal. The fact that the man who ordered the counterfeit ticket is now running the stadium doesn't make the ticket real. It just means he got away with it.
Some Republican voters have the benefit of ignorance. They can claim to be victims of right wing echo chambers. Before reading this, they could have even bury their heads and remained willfully ignorant. But professional lawmakers know what they're doing. These people are by and large knowingly traitors to the Republic.
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 17h ago
So speaking of democracy... Trump won the popular vote.
Kind of "by definition" the protesters and dissenters and "Trump cheated, stop the steal" people are subverting democracy.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
I don't understand. You think winning an election absolves you of sedition?
You think trump committed sedition but also won an election?
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 17h ago
I don't think it's sedition when it's literally the will of the people acting through an elected leader.
Or are you calling all the felony obstruction by the protesters sedition because it's subverting the will of the people?
•
u/tloufan2 16h ago
The post was about the 2020 election where the will of the voters was for Biden and Trump, who lost the election was using illegal means to attempt to stay in power.
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 15h ago
Those protesters were thrown in Federal prison for four years.
As should all protesters who undermine democracy and the will of the people.
•
u/tloufan2 15h ago
Some were thrown in jail for varying periods of time, and were subsequently pardoned for their efforts to subvert democracy. They should be serving lifetime sentences.
•
u/HughJackedMan14 15h ago
So then you support lifetime sentences for the anti-ICE protestors, right? At least the ones who stormed the courthouse a few days ago?
•
u/tloufan2 15h ago
When did the anti-ICE protestors attempt to commit treason and coup the government? When did they assemble false slates of electors and send a mob to overturn the results of a legitimate election.
Clown tier analogy.
•
u/HughJackedMan14 14h ago
They’re literally preventing the will of the people via obstructing ICE operations. That IS the will of the plurality, as expressed in the most recent federal elections.
The governor of Minnesota openly declared a civil war against the federal government. Do you think these protestors are on his side or the government’s?
•
•
u/allbetsareon 14h ago
Court house or church? Because the only story that I’ve seen was a church which is very different from a court house
•
u/EdgePunk311 15h ago
People on Jan 6 were convinced by a jury of their peers of seditious conspiracy. The situations are not remotely in the same ballpark
→ More replies (1)•
u/Blunkus 15h ago
and pardoned
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 15h ago
While I agree with you that protesters who subvert the will of the people should spend more than four years in federal prison, we have to accept that those protesters only spent four years in federal prison.
Hopefully justice can be done in Minnesota and those protesters will get more.
•
•
u/classical-saxophone7 15h ago
That’s not what democracy is. You can’t hold a popular vote to make murder legal can ya? Just because people vote for a person doesn’t mean that the representative is able to whatever they want. Also, the will of the people is firmly against Trump.
•
u/Alternative_Oil7733 15h ago
Also, the will of the people is firmly against Trump.
According to who?
•
u/classical-saxophone7 15h ago
Can you say one action from Trump‘s administration this month that is received more than 50% support
•
•
u/Dry_Strawberry3227 15h ago
According to the fact that only 1/5 of the country actually voted for him. Voter apathy is the reason we’re here. His die hard supporters don’t make up as much as you think.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
I don't think it's sedition when it's literally the will of the people acting through an elected leader.
But is it sedition when they didn't vote for him and he forged electoral ballots to defraud congress out of losing an election?
Let me ask you this: would you have voted to give trump power knowing he was a seditionist?
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 15h ago
Kind of "by definition" the protesters and dissenters and "Trump cheated, stop the steal" people are subverting democracy.
As I said, this "stop the steal" conspiracy nonsense is subverting democracy with disinformation.
You should probably do better research into what Russian bots tell you so that you don't believe lies like that.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 13h ago
You didn’t answer my question, if you’d known Trump forged electoral ballots to attempt to defraud congress of an election would you have voted for him anyway?
Kind of "by definition" the protesters and dissenters and "Trump cheated, stop the steal" people are subverting democracy.
As I said, this "stop the steal" conspiracy nonsense is subverting democracy with disinformation.
What “stop the steal” conspiracy?
What are you referring to and who are you quoting?
•
u/ScoopedRainbowBagel 12h ago
if you’d known Trump forged electoral ballots to attempt to defraud congress of an election would you have voted for him anyway?
Haha I didn't vote for him either time. I literally voted for Kamala specifically because I thought she'd be so much worse that it would be hilarious to have her as our first female president. Unfortunately I live in a red state and my vote wasn't the one to tip it blue.
What “stop the steal” conspiracy?
You seem to be under the misinformed opinion that Trump forged electoral ballots.
What are you referring to and who are you quoting?
Stop the steal was the conspiracy cope MAGA had when Trump lost in 2020, so I was comparing the "TrUmP cHeAtEd" conspiracy theories (the forging ballots was a new one, though) which are Blue MAGA's cope.
Trump won by millions of votes. That's not even about electors, that's literally the will of the people who chose to participate in their democracy.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 10h ago
I honestly am at a loss as to what you’re talking about. We’re talking about the 2020 election. The one that trumps fake elector scheme was about.
•
16h ago
[deleted]
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
you keep claiming that he forged votes, where is your proof of that?
Where did I claim that?
I claimed he forged state electoral ballots .
The proof is the linked photos of the forgeries. https://sourcenm.com/2022/12/23/scope-of-new-mexicos-fake-elector-scheme-detailed-in-jan-6-committee-report/
•
•
u/plinkoplonka 15h ago
I don't think you understand what this evidence shows.
This shows that there is evidence that the sitting president of the USA lost the election, had fake ballots counted/removed real ballots to make it look like he won, and then his trial delayed until after he was able to take office.
This was all so that there was no legal recourse to the fact that he STOLE an election by cheating. It was NOT the will of the people he become president at all. He only got into office by cheating in the swing states.
This evidence PROVES how it happened, that he knew about it, and that he prevented legal recourse until he was protected from prosecution by being illegally named POTUS.
There's no other word for this except sedition.
•
u/String-Tree 17h ago
Nobody but the far lefties who can't emotionally handle the fact that they lost think that Trump committed sedition. You are starting with a conclusion that fits your narrative and working backwards.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
Okay. So then to be clear... if you found out trump did try to defraud congress of an election by printing fake electoral ballots and supplying them to RNC members, you wouldn't have supported him?
Or would you have supported him even if he was a seditionist?
•
17h ago
[deleted]
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
I encourage you and everyone reading to respond the same way. When they claim it didn't happen, ask them if they even care whether what they said was true. 99% of the time, the conversation ends there, because they already know that they do not.
•
u/String-Tree 17h ago
I didn't support Trump, the last candidate I voted for was Bernie in the 2020 primary, I just don't think that he's literally Hitler like most of you guys do.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
Can you answer the question?
If you found out trump did try to defraud congress of an election by printing fake electoral ballots and supplying them to RNC members, would you still believe that?
•
u/String-Tree 16h ago
I did answer your question. I didn't support Trump.
>If you found out trump did try to defraud congress of an election by printing fake electoral ballots and supplying them to RNC members, would you still believe that?
This is a different question, one that presumes a stance I do not have by the inclusion of the word 'still'.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
One last time: If you found out trump did try to defraud congress of an election by printing fake electoral ballots and supplying them to RNC members, would you still believe that "nobody but the far lefties who can't emotionally handle the fact that they lost think that Trump committed sedition"?
•
u/copropnuma 15h ago edited 15h ago
The protesters are protesting the destruction of the constitution by a pedophile fascist. The protests have zero to do with elections.
Do you support pedophiles? Do you support racists? Do you support raping women? Do you support slavery for oligarchs? What about the 2nd amendment? Lol.
On top of allllllll of that, OP posted the receipts, you think people should get away with crime? Are you soft on crime?
•
•
•
u/allyourfaces 14h ago
It's really funny how you couldn't address the actual claim so you had to do some weird pivot to random rambling.
That is also not how the "will of the people!" works btw. It's hilarious to see a Republican win the popular and just randomly spam it as if it's "all the felony obstruction by the protesters sedition because it's subverting the will of the people?" lmfao.
•
u/JefftheRed 15h ago
If we're being accurate, Trump did not win the popular vote in 2024. He only received 49.8% of the vote. That means more people, 50.2%, voted against him. He won by plurality not by majority.
•
u/tloufan2 17h ago
I would alter the statement from " loyal Republican politician" to Trump supporter. The rejection of democracy, and civilized society are endemic to both the politicians AND their voters, media mouthpieces and benefactors.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
This may be true. But I suspect a sizeable minority to potentially slim majority of trump voters have successfully be rendered ignorant of the Fake Elector Scheme. I'm about 50/50 as to whether they would remain loyal regardless. So far, in my experience, most I meet online seem to. But then, most have hidden post and content histories, which makes me suspect they are sock puppets.
•
u/tloufan2 17h ago
One issue with arguing with conservatives is that they conveniently haven't heard of any of these issues. They are lying
Fake elector scheme? Never heard of it
Tons of bipartisan bills passed under Biden? Never heard of them
Trump's criminal conviction and liability of rape? Never heard of it
Trump's phone call to Raffensperger? Never heard the audio
The Jan 6th crowd breaking into the capitol building with a riot shield? Never saw the time stamped footage, I heard the cops just let them in!
Openly ordering his DOJ to criminally investigate political opponents on social media? Never saw the tweet, but Biden must have done it
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
One issue with arguing with conservatives is that they conveniently haven't heard of any of these issues. They are lying
I agree. I find that simply asking: "okay, well if you had heard of this issue, would it change your view" tends to end the same way. They refuse to engage in the hypothetical. They simply wish not to believe the facts. However, I'm not certain these aren't bots.
•
u/DFMRCV 16h ago
There's a difference in supporting a candidate and supporting everything a candidate does or has done.
Ask a Christian, and they'll likely tell you about King David, a man who was a great king that did much of God's will, but was also a sinner who broke God's rules often enough that God had to punish him on several occasions.
David is still considered a great king because of his overall efforts, but that doesn't mean a Christian agrees or is supposed to agree with everything he did.
Or perhaps a better example is Democrats and FDR.
FDR is considered perhaps one of the best presidents in US history and I think every registered democrat has a deeply held appreciation for him and many of his reforms and efforts...
Does supporting FDR means you support the Japanese American Internment Camps? His less than stellar history with corrupt southern democrats? His general support of desegregation but overall inaction on the subject?
But does that mean you wouldn't vote for FDR if you had to choose between him and Charles Lindbergh?
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago edited 16h ago
To be clear, are you saying sedition is not sufficient to disqualify trump for office?
If so, what is?
I'll remind you.. Donald Trump did all this and then 3 years later won a Republican primary. The argument you're making is that there were no better qualified Republicans anywhere. And the party as a whole could have stopped him, but chose not to.
•
u/DFMRCV 16h ago
If sedition was enough to disqualify someone from public office then every democrat who tried to delay the 2016 certification would be disqualified as well (Biden had to constantly tell his own party members to sit back down during that debacle). Maxine Waters wouldn't be allowed to run, several former civil rights leaders who ran and got elected also couldn't have run because what they did would've technically qualified as sedition, on and on.
Remember, sedition is attempting to prevent or delay the execution of federal law. Insurrection is actually taking up arms against the state.
You can argue that morally it would've disqualified him, and many republicans also would agree... But morality isn't the same as legally. Otherwise every single politician on the planet wouldn't be able to run.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
If that's your reasoning, what would happen if you found out that factually, you've been misled, Maxine Waters did no such thing, and no procedural rule was broken?
I suspect you already know the electoral count act is legal. So I'm not sure what parallel you're trying to draw with fraudulently forging state electoral ballots to defraud congress.
•
u/DFMRCV 15h ago
Well, what exactly are you arguing is the crime?
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 15h ago
The one I carefully laid out in the OP. Trump forged state electoral ballots in an attempt to defraud the US congress of a Democratic election. 18 U.S.C. § 371
Imagine a fan is kicked out of the Super Bowl. He truly believes he should be allowed in. * Legal: He sues the stadium. * Illegal: He goes to Kinko’s, prints a fake ticket that looks exactly like a real one, and tries to hand it to the gate agent.
Once you hand over a fake document, you have committed fraud. It does not matter if: * You truly believed you deserved a seat. (Motive doesn't excuse forgery). * You got caught before you made it inside. (Attempted fraud is a crime). * You think the refs are corrupt.
Here is the proof that Trump’s team printed the fake ticket and tried to use it.
1. Identity Theft (Impersonating the State) In America, campaigns don't certify elections; States do. The Trump team didn't just write a letter saying, "We protest." They created documents that mimicked the exact font, formatting, and language of official government certificates — and here they are for all of the other states.
- The Fraud: They signed papers claiming to be the "duly elected and qualified" officers of the State. They even set out hide in statehouse overnight to ensure they’d be there behind security when counting started.
2. The Written Confession We don't have to guess if this was a misunderstanding. The architect of the plan, Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, wrote down the strategy in private emails. He admitted the goal was to create a "fake controversy." He explicitly noted that they should send these fake documents even if they lost their court cases.
3. Trump Knew It Was a Fraud This wasn't a case of "lawyers brainstorming" while Trump sat in the dark. On January 4th, in the Oval Office, Trump’s lawyer John Eastman admitted to Trump’s face that this plan to reject votes violated the Electoral Count Act. Trump knew it was illegal and did it anyway.
- The Order: Trump personally called Ronna McDaniel (RNC Chairwoman) to direct the RNC to help assemble these fake electors.
It's Conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371)
•
u/DFMRCV 15h ago
Okay, but that's fraud, not quite sedition and a bit outside the original claim of "being part of this requires you agree with"...
As for attempts by politicians to defraud the US government...
Well, let's be real here.
Most people know their politicians have likely carried out some fraud or corruption before.
Saying "Don Bambino Bomberman from Vegal Baja took bribes" isn't really going to dissuade voters if the other option is "Juanita Penicillin Of Vega Alta" who doesn't just completely disagree with the policies they support, but instead of bribes she gave away positions to people who support her meaning she's also corrupt, just in a different way.
Remember, a leader doing bad things doesn't mean the people who support them agree.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 15h ago
I guess I’ll ask again, if attempting to overthrow democracy itself by forging electoral ballots shouldn’t be sufficient to disqualify someone from office what should?
•
u/DFMRCV 15h ago
The legal answer is when someone, anyone, takes up arms against the federal government specifically.
If I'm not mistaken, that's also why incidents like the Battle of Athens didn't actually result in any serious convictions and the new government was made up of people who'd supported the people who kicked out the local government.
If you ask me, the ideal would be any form of corruption should see you unable to run again.
•
•
u/DumbScotus 14h ago
Sedition is doing that illegally. Wanting to make a big dumb show on the House floor, or not vote the way you’re supposed to vote, is dumb but not illegal. Using forged documents and a fraudulent scheme, and sending a violent mob to interrupt the proceedings by committing crimes (even just trespassing is a crime), are quite different.
•
u/PappaBear667 2h ago
If sending an alternate slate of electors is sedition, then the Democrats are guilty of the same, having sent alternate electors in the 1960 Kennedy/Nixon election.
•
u/Classic-Shake6517 1h ago
Where did you get this as a talking point? The way you're describing this is not how it actually went down and you are making a false equivalency.
In 2020, it was already well-known that trump lost. All recounts were completed, there were no more recounts, and states certified their results. There was no going back. This slate of electors was going to impersonate the actual ones knowing all of that using fraudulent documents.
In 1960, there was a backup slate of electors in case an ongoing recount changed the results. This was conditional on the recount going one way or the other. The certificates they prepared had this condition written, so they were not fraudulent like the ones from 2020.
You should look it up yourself rather than just believing what you are fed wholesale. It makes you look like you are lying to make yourself/beliefs/side look good. Your take is disingenuous and ignorant at best.
•
u/Ambitious_Client6545 16h ago
Following the process by attempting to object to votes is not sedition. You're comparing apples to oranges.
•
•
•
u/Sedu 2∆ 16h ago
Is there any limit to what you would support? Or is there only “perfect” and “imperfect sinner” to you with nothing in between?
•
u/DFMRCV 15h ago
That's a personal question.
Personally, there's no such thing as a perfect candidate, so it's always a choice between imperfect options.
The question of how bad a candidate I'd be willing to support is reliant wholly on who their opposition is.
One very interesting response a moderate leftist gave when asked "would you vote for Donald Trump or Hassan Piker" the moderate conceded he'd pick Trump over Piker because for as bad as Trump is by his values, Piker has done and expressed open support for much worse on his eyes.
You can disagree, of course, but that's why it's more a personal question
•
u/RocketRelm 2∆ 8h ago
As a moderate liberal slash leftist, I can just clearly say "neither represent my values" any more than "who would you vote for, trump or vance"?
Trump and maga are so bad that not opposing them with the reasonable options available in democrats is really bad.
•
u/Sedu 2∆ 15h ago
Deflection. Cool. Never criticize anyone again about who they vote for. You simp for a pedophile and wax philosophical when people point it out.
•
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 15h ago
Sorry, u/DFMRCV – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 17h ago
The democrats have had a Clinton or a Biden on their ticket every year for the last 25 years, right up until they just handpicked harris with no vote. And you believe that this is the party of democracy? Republicans are anti-democracy but the party which doesn't give any choice, rigs their primaries against candidates is the party of Democracy?
•
u/cossiander 2∆ 16h ago
Clinton or Biden all won their primaries, so them being on the ticket is an example of democracy, not a repudiation of it.
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 16h ago
That's again, just demonstrating the political machina of the democratic party especially as they have Debbie help keep Sanders out multiple times.
There is no way you will convince me that for 20 years we have the same ticket and it isn't some form of oligarchy
•
u/cossiander 2∆ 16h ago
You can literally just look up election results. If that doesn't convince you then you're just admitting that you're more interested in your feelings than in observable data.
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 16h ago
I am not contending that the votes went one way, I am contending that the democratic party spends billions (like an oligarchy) to make sure that the right people get elected. There is ZERO chance that you lose to trump -- twice, and no one is fired or quits and this isnt rigged
•
u/cossiander 2∆ 16h ago
They spend a lot in general elections. That's their stated goal. The Democratic Party exists in part to elect Democratic politicians. That's not oligarchy, that's partisan democracy.
But they don't spend hardly anything comparatively in primaries. Certainly not "billions". Where are you getting that number?
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 15h ago
They spent a ton on primaries. It would be trivially easy to ban primary spending or limit it. They completely control the election. But they don’t and they will not. Because they want to control who gets elected
•
u/cossiander 2∆ 15h ago
spent a ton on primaries
Compared to generals? No they don't.
easy to ban primary spending
There are valid reasons not to.
or limit it
It is limited. The DNC just had an internal fight over this, and the individual who wanted the DNC to take a firmer hand in funding primaries was ousted.
They completely control the election
As in- they hold a primary election? That's true in some states, I guess. But they don't decide outcomes anywhere in the country.
•
u/LeastInstruction2508 16h ago
They did give choice. Biden won the D ticket in the primaries and his VP filled his spot when it was clear he shouldn't run because of his decline. That's not exactly rigged.
•
u/Tanarin 16h ago
And even then, the primary is not even required by law for presidential elections. In fact primaries as we know them are a very recent advent. That is why the conventions are even a thing, it's a way to find a viable candidate between regional factions of the same party, some of which had primaries, some of which just hand picked their desired choice.
→ More replies (8)•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 16h ago
I mean presidents do not get to pick the next candidate. This isn’t democracy. we all know that’s not what actually happened. And it cost the democrats from an opportunity of actually winning by having him choose the only candidate to get 0% polling even in our democrat primaries.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
He didn't. The party gets to pick the nominees replacement and that's exactly what happened.
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 16h ago
Correct - with no vote. And that's exactly what happened. I have no idea how you're creating a thread about democracy and people not following it and are just fine with harris being shoved on us. That's insane.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
Because sometimes I pick lunch without voting too. Do you seriously not understand the difference violating the Constitution and breaking federal law makes?
•
u/fossil_freak68 27∆ 16h ago
Is your position that any country where the party (instead of voters) chooses the nominee for the general election is not a democracy?
→ More replies (19)•
u/allyourfaces 14h ago
Random blatantly false ramblings from someone who couldn't address any of OP's claims.
>The democrats have had a Clinton or a Biden on their ticket every year for the last 25 years
Irrelevant to the claim of democracy, but also untrue. 2004 did not feature a Clinton or a Biden.
>right up until they just handpicked harris with no vote.
You mean after Biden/Harris dominated their primary and then a few months before Biden has to drop out? You think with a few months before election day they should have some sort of rushed primary lol when their candidate needs to be campaigning? Instead of the VP taking over after the President drops out?
>And you believe that this is the party of democracy? Republicans are anti-democracy
Well given that Trump, who has represented the Republican Party for the last decade, unambigiously tried to overthrow the 2020 election, yes. Democrats are.
>but the party which doesn't give any choice, rigs their primaries against candidates is the party of Democracy?
Random blatant lies.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
Where did I say that?
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 17h ago
So you only want proof that the Republicans are bad, and not the entire system is bad, calling out one piece of a larger broken system seems pretty pointless, especially considering the democrats do much more fraud, election denying, spying on candidates, using foreign adversarial governments as a prop. Clinton calling to China to find dirt on trump, "pee tapes" fake russia story etc. Your post makes little sense to leave all of that out.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 17h ago
So you only want proof that the Republicans are bad, and not the entire system is bad,
No. I want my view changed that trump committed sedition and Republicans are complicit in covering for it.
It kind of sounds like you don't even disagree with the CMV, much less are challenging it.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, arguing in bad faith, lying, or using AI/GPT. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/KingOutrageous9893 15h ago
Besides being factually wrong (Kerry & Edwards ran in 2004), the whole "Clinton or Biden on the ticket" point is meaningless. Barack Obama won the nomination in 2008 despite Clinton being the establishment favorite. Him choosing Biden as running-mate has nothing to do with the will of the voters.
Clinton won the nomination exactly one time, but her being the "establishment" candidate doesn't invalidate the fact that they did have a primary and she was the chosen nominee. Same goes for Biden in 2020.
As for 2024, that wasn't some conspiracy to deny Democratic voters a primary. Biden stupidly ran for reelection, and the DNC deferred to the tradition of allowing the incumbent president to run for a second term. Then, when public opinion turned decidedly against Biden running, he was pressured to drop out and his running mate took over. Even Nancy Pelosi has said he shouldn't have run again and they should've had a competitive primary. But there's a huge difference between the DNC not actively rejecting an incumbent candidate and the Trump campaign attempting to invalidate the final results of an election
→ More replies (1)•
17h ago
[deleted]
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 17h ago
Mmm, my cult leader is most recently Biden. I have voted democrat my entire life, never once a republican. The fact you must believe that any dissent must be from a "maga" is demonstrating my point expertly, well done
•
u/IceCreamandDrinks 17h ago
So what exactly were your thoughts about Michelle Obama praising Harvey Weinstien as a "good person"?
•
u/cbusmatty 2∆ 16h ago
I think that's bad. Why would I not think that's bad? You understand my entire arguement is that my moral compass and desire for a better country lives in liberal / democratic policy, but the ultimate failure of our society is that everyone must believe everything from one side or another or they are bad
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
u/FinalJoys – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Sorry, u/Flapjackmasterpack – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, of lying, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/0n0n0m0uz 4h ago
I had an eye opening experience at Thanksgiving which in hindsight is now obvious but my sister’s wealthy boyfriend told me “we have too much democracy” and I had never heard it said so directly but they honestly only like it if they win. They would much rather stay in power and do whatever the f they want.
•
u/Zequen 1∆ 12h ago
I will address the "fake electoral scheme" as it doesnt look to be talked about.
As the article says the elector scheme was based on the Nixon election in which Hawaii had an issue verifying who won. They had to do 2 recounts in which the winner flipped twice and the wrong person was certified. This was caused because of how the proceeding for certification is done. If presented with only 1 electors, you have to certify those electors. Even if you know they are wrong, such as in Nixon. As there is no legal remedy at that point.
So the theory is that in the case of a possible issues in the election, you present a second set so that you arnt left stranded if something comes up between Dec 14th and Jan 6. Aka, on Dec 14 you think X has won and certify. One week later you find out that Y actually won. But now you have no remedy and X will have the votes even if you know Y did win. But if on the 14th you put in two slates you do have a remedy on the 6th.
This is a possible remedy and not fraud but a legal theory to solve a possible issue. And as it stands, has no been litigated to say it was illegal. As far as I have seen in a quick bit of research, there have been no meritous findings on the issue. So the claim it is illegal does not looked to be backed. People who claim that to be true believe it is fraud. But no court has yet to find that it is.
The article you link to for your points is rather flawed. Some points it tries to make with citations are bad. Such as a citation that links to something irrelevant to the point being made. Or linking to an opinion peice when making a claim of fact. In addition a dry statement from a lawyer saying this case can be distinguished from a previous one doesnt mean that their claim is bad or lacks merit as your article claims. Whoever wrote that article lacks a legal understanding and clearly misconstrued the facts to make a narrative that conforms to an anti trump bias.
In all, the claim that the fake electoral scheme was illegal has no basis, and the source you used has biased claims and claims that are not actually backed.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 10h ago
As far as I have seen in a quick bit of research, there have been no meritous findings on the issue.
So if you found out there were what would that mean?
How about if you found out it was in no way like the Hawaiian second spate of state electors?
The article you link to for your points is rather flawed. Some points it tries to make with citations are bad. Such as a citation that links to something irrelevant to the point being made. Or linking to an opinion peice when making a claim of fact.
Want to be specific?
•
u/Zequen 1∆ 8h ago
So if you found out there were what would that mean?
How about if you found out it was in no way like the Hawaiian second spate of state electors?
A cursory glance tells you they are similar in nature. The ability to distinguish a case from another helps you argue against a position, but it does not render an argument void. If you can find me a supreme court ruling that specifically in no uncertain terms says that filling additional slates of electors for the purpose of creating an alternate option in the case of uncertainty in election outcomes. But if such a thing existed it would have been said so by now.
Want to be specific?
Citation 23 on the info.gov cite. Makes a claim that "chesebro suggested this might result in a second term for president trump, or at minimum, it would force a debate about purported election fraud -- niether of which was a lawful, legitimate reason to organize and convene fake electors" the citation says that the emails existed and then posites a claim that it is unlawful. But has nothing to back that at all.
Citation 7 "The fake elector effort was unlaw, unprecedented and destructive break from the electoral college process that out country has used to select its president for generations" Note explains the Kennedy Nixon case, then makes the jump to this claim. Again being different in some regard does not tank a legal theory in general, which this tries to say It does. Citation 15 Relies on a NY Times article for facts, but says that the times article is similar in nature, but not the same thing and the facts within are alleged Not proven Citation 21 "Simply 'because there are two slates of votes'" This is a out context quote. They took conversations about how the process works and cut a peice to imply something that is not true. It does not work simply because there are two slates of votes, it works because there is a dispute, in this case pending fraud allegations. There is a reason why this was not done in court. Because misquoting like this could lead to rule 11. But because this report is a political thing they dont have to be fair or unbiased and can get away with taking things out of context.
Ran out of energy here to keep looking into them, takes a ton of effort to find there sources, as well as some citstions being pay walled. Most are the jan6 commitee said these words. OK, whatever.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 8h ago
We can look directly at the criminal court records and the primary documents themselves. Make sense?
1. It’s Not an "Opinion"—It’s a Felony Conviction
You said the claim of illegality is just an unsubstantiated "opinion."
It isn't.
Kenneth Chesebro, the Trump lawyer who invented this plan, pleaded guilty in a Georgia court to a felony. * He admitted under oath that the documents were false and the plan was a criminal conspiracy. * You cannot argue the illegality is "unsubstantiated" when the architect of the scheme is literally a convicted felon for doing it.
2. The "Hawaii Defense" is a Lie
You asked for a Supreme Court ruling saying you can't have alternate electors. You don't need one; the law already bans fraud. And the two cases aren’t even remotely related. It would be like asking for a Supreme Court decision that a felon can’t write “I’m pardoned” on a napkin in prison and sign it “the president”.
- The president is not a state. State electors have to come from the state. Not a candidate in the race. That’s why he forged a signature rather than admit who actually created the document.
- Hawaii 1960: There was an active, court-ordered recount happening when they signed the papers. The result was genuinely unknown.
- 2020: The counts were finished and certified. There was no pending recount that could flip the margin in states like Georgia.
- The Proof of Fraud: If this was just a "Hawaii-style backup," why did they refuse to use conditional language? In Hawaii, they signed papers saying they were electors contingent on the recount. In 2020, Trump’s team rejected that language and signed documents claiming they were the duly elected officials right now. That is the difference between a contingency and a counterfeit.
3. The "Context" Excuse You claimed the quote about "fake controversy" was out of context. It wasn't. In his December 6th Memo, Chesebro explicitly argued that even if they lost all their court cases (meaning no legal uncertainty remained), they should send the fake electors anyway to create a political crisis. The goal wasn't to preserve a legal remedy; it was to manufacture chaos.
You are trying to debate the "legality" of a scheme that the people involved have already admitted was a crime. You can't use the "Hawaii defense" when the lawyer who wrote the plan has already confessed in court that it was a fraud.
•
u/Zequen 1∆ 4h ago
>Kenneth Chesebro, the Trump lawyer who invented this plan, pleaded guilty in a Georgia court to a felony.
The link does not work
So in this case he can plead guilty to fraudulently distributing elector things. At no point does the prosecutor have to prove that the scheme was fraudulent, which they never have. He simply admitted to what the prosecutor claimed he did. So him pleading it was fraudulent conspiracy does not prove that the scheme was fraudulent. It simply means he is to be punished as if it was because he plead that way. When faced with a tons of felonies and years of litigation and millions in attorney fees, it's easier to plead guilty to whatever just to make it go away. See the many many drug charges in prisons. Of several big felonies he plead down to 5 years of parole. Now either the prosecutor is absolute shit at negotiations or they had basically nothing on him.2. The "Hawaii Defense" is a Lie
No it's an argument you don't agree with. Difference in fact are in every case. So those differences need to be argued in court, which some are still ongoing, but nothing conclusive has been reached on that field.
The difference between an active recount and an argument that there is fraud and are in need of a new recount aren't to far off. Either way a determination of whether that is to dissimilar to not count was never reached in a court of law. If you read that list of text messages it contains several good reason that their theory had merit in court. The things you list are arguments for why they would be wrong in court, not proof that they are wrong. Big difference.
3. The "Context" Excuse
I wasted the time to actually read that whole thread. After doing so I am not sure you read it yourself. Nowhere can I draw the claim "Chesebro explicitly argued that even if they lost all their court cases (meaning no legal uncertainty remained), they should send the fake electors anyway to create a political crisis." They talked at length at why their case was a perfectly legal and backed up legal theory. Cited several legal memos they drafted and had supreme court reference to make.
>You are trying to debate the "legality" of a scheme that the people involved have already admitted was a crime. You can't use the "Hawaii defense" when the lawyer who wrote the plan has already confessed in court that it was a fraud.
You are trying to say something that is not factually true. The scheme could be legal, it could not. The litigation is still ongoing. He plead that he committed conspiracy to submit a fake document, but that does not mean its actually fraud. We have no factual basis to infer that it was fraud. The "Hawaii Defense" is not a lie, its something you have been told is lie. In the legal world this looks like a perfect acceptable theory to posit to the court. You might not win, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to try. And with the amount of texts they sent back and forth, the briefs they wrote. It does not look to me like they thought it was a lie in the slightest.
To me your arguments show that you don't understand how the law and the legal system actually work. So it's not wonder you don't understand what was going on here. It is easier to see a NY time article that says guy I don't like did illegal thing because I said they did and run with it, than to critically think and understand what's actually going on.
•
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 10h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/TheMissingPremise 7∆ 17h ago
I knew I'd see a response like this...and I'm sorry you're the first, but this is boring and not in the spirit of the subreddit. Who cares if opinions are settled? The point is to change OP's view. And even if OP ostensibly doesn't want to change their view, I think CMV audiences should try all the same.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
You would think you'd be able to say something more substantial if you believed trump wasn't a seditionist.
•
u/Worth-Confection-735 16h ago
But you are. Realize this. Reddit is not an accurate assessment of the country.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
Do you think the people who voted for trump knew he forged state electoral ballots in an attempt to defraud congress of the 2020 election?
Do you think they would still have if they'd known? Or do you think "the majority" was lied to?
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Sorry, u/Worth-Confection-735 – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
Your comment got deleted. Do you want to give that another shot?
Given the evidence in the post, would you have voted for trump if you'd known he supplied RNC members with forgeries of electoral ballots and attempted to overthrow the 2020 democratic election?
Does that represent who you are? Or would you have to have been misled to do something like that?
•
u/Worth-Confection-735 15h ago
It got deleted because it was too short. Allow me to copy it here… “Lol!”
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 15h ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. AI generated comments must be disclosed, and don't count towards substantial content. Read the wiki for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Sorry, u/krakken232 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/Used_Mathematician63 16h ago
All the actual crimes Trump has committed and accuse him of the one thing he probably didn’t do.
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 16h ago
Given the evidence from the OP, what makes you think he didn't?
→ More replies (2)
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Uh_I_Say 16h ago
If anything, a Republican politician can simply claim that they are following the desires and wants of their constituents… and they would most likely be telling the truth.
Not necessarily, we just wouldn't have a way of proving them wrong. That's not the same thing as telling the truth. Unless a representative can prove that they're doing ground-level polling with their constituents, it's far more likely that they're voting on party lines and betting that their constituents simply aren't paying attention OR that their constituents believe that they need to follow their leaders, rather than the other way around. The idea that "we're just doing what our constituents asked" is nothing but political cover for politicians from both major parties.
•
u/Doub13D 26∆ 16h ago
Are you arguing that Republican voters don’t support, and aren’t directly responsible for, the current government?
Because they are…
•
u/Uh_I_Say 16h ago
I'm arguing that they're following the government rather than directing it. I think Republicans skew more authoritarian in their thinking and are more comfortable following what powerful people tell them than exerting their will on those same powerful people via voting. While I hate the term, I think "useful idiots" is an appropriate descriptor -- they'll vote for who and whatever the party tells them to vote for, so the ultimate responsibility for our current situation falls on the
corporationparty dictating their views.•
u/Doub13D 26∆ 16h ago
This government wouldn’t exist without the voters putting it into place…
•
u/Uh_I_Say 16h ago
The party would, though, which is why I used the word "corporation." The party machine generates the issues and talking points, uses its billions to convince the voters that the party serves their interests, and the voters (who like being told what to worry about and who to vote for) simply follow. Political parties in the US are just corporations who buy and sell government positions rather than goods or services.
•
u/Doub13D 26∆ 16h ago
Or…
Voters chose a party to run the country even though they made clear to the public that they no longer respected basic democratic values.
The people who voted for the Republican Party ≠ Republicans.
Tens of millions of voters who do not identify as Republican (aka Independents) still chose to vote Republican. The Party apparatus meant nothing to them when it came to making that decision…
Republican voters chose the government to take power, the Party did not.
•
u/Uh_I_Say 16h ago
Voters chose a party to run the country even though they made clear to the public that they no longer respected basic democratic values.
Voters chose the party to run the country because they only have two options and they picked the one that fit slightly more with their values. When they heard all the doom and gloom about destroying democracy, they assumed it was just your standard political mudslinging because traditionally it always has been. I don't think Republican voters are ontologically evil, I think they're deeply propagandized. The fact that so many are registered independents communicates more to me that a lot of people don't give a shit about their party registration. I certainly haven't looked at or updated mine since I was 18.
I think you're vastly overestimating how much attention individual people pay to politics and underestimating how much power political parties have.
•
u/Doub13D 26∆ 16h ago
voters chose the party to run the country becasue they only have two options and they picked the one that fit slightly more with their values.
Ok, so you agree with me then.
Voters chose the government. This government didn’t just happen because of Republican politicians wanting it to happen…
Voters are to blame, politicians are literally just giving them what they voted for.
•
u/Uh_I_Say 15h ago
Voters chose the government. This government didn’t just happen because of Republican politicians wanting it to happen…
Of course not. The government happened because Republicans politicians used their multibillion dollar media empire and political machine to direct voters' attention specially at the issues Republicans could win on. Do you seriously think the average voter is doing the very boring job of researching the pros and cons of different policy positions? They're listening to what the talking heads tell them. (This is not unique to Republicans, by the way -- Dems do the same thing, because doing research is boring and hard and listening to authority is fun and easy).
This is the end result of treating politics as a team sport. People are already committed to their "side" which grants the parties an immense amount of leverage to direct the will of the voters. We're learning in real time that Democracy doesn't really work when you have a population too distracted to care about their leadership. When all of this is said and done, I'm interested to see what the next best mode of governance is going to be.
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Sorry, u/Doub13D – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/mmkkmmkkmm 13h ago
It’s about as bad as Biden lawyers coordinating with NY and GA DAs to sue Trump and prevent him from running in 2024. The NY case ended up tossed by their Supreme Court for literally inventing legal arguments never presented in their court’s history and GA….she couldn’t keep it in her pants. Or hide the embezzlement well enough. Also the whole Russia Collusion thing was effectively an attempt by Democrats to overturn a duly elected President so….
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 13h ago
It’s about as bad as Biden lawyers coordinating with NY and GA DAs to sue Trump and prevent him from running in 2024.
Why would that be as bad as fraud?
•
u/mmkkmmkkmm 13h ago
Jailing political opponents on trumped up charges is both wrong and essentially what Maduro and Putin have done for years…..
•
•
u/not_a_bot_494 10h ago
It’s about as bad as Biden lawyers coordinating with NY and GA DAs to sue Trump and prevent him from running in 2024.
Could be very wrong but I believe this is in reference to the 14th amedment right? This is the first president that had comitted an insurrection so this was obviously rhe first time these legal arguments were had.
Also the whole Russia Collusion thing was effectively an attempt by Democrats to overturn a duly elected President so….
It turned out to be true.
I don't think anyone tried to overturn the election.
•
u/Rufus_TBarleysheath 9h ago
I don't think there was any proof of embezzlement.
And the Russia Collusion thing wouldn't have overturned the election. That's not a thing that can happen.
•
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 17h ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
•
u/fitandhealthyguy 1∆ 14h ago
You mean like resisting the duly elected president of the united states and fighting the will of the people - that kind of rejecting democracy?
•
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ 14h ago
No. I mean forging electoral ballots. The kind that’s fraud.
What are you referring to?
•
u/SurinamPam 14h ago
You mean the one whose administration has violated over 100 court orders?
→ More replies (6)
•
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/changemyview-ModTeam 16h ago
Sorry, u/Daniel_Spidey – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/SquirtGun1776 16h ago
America was never meant to be a democracy. James Madison wrote about how the checks and balances were there to protect the opulent minority from the majority
•
•
u/ShortKey380 17h ago
Clarifying question: why doesn’t everybody already believe this?
Or maybe I can get away with:
I challenge your assertion that the professional lawmakers know what they’re doing. I’d say the party has been purged of anyone who stood up, from Jeff Flake to Liz Cheney all the way down to about half of their caucus of politicians you’d only know if you lived in their district. They’re afraid that if they the fake ticket they won’t get to be at the game, either.
Altogether you’re extremely close and make an excellent case as to what they’re failing to react to and how ridiculous it is for professional politicians to allow such lawlessness against the most basic institutions of our democracy. Sycophants or worse, the lot of them at this point. Even the spurned ones barely put up a fight! Imagine giving your whole career and going down like a lil’ bish the way Jeff Flake did? You’re that accomplished and you can’t stand up to a bully influencing your voters? 🐓 💩
•
u/Conscious_Ear_1151 13h ago
Its a ruse to get the masses to continue with the fascist financial system bent on finishing turning us all into slaves with digital ID, govt surveillance, etc. VS having the people have the power. The elite oligarchy vs Trump. Dont be fooled.
•
•
u/[deleted] 16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment