I was thinking the same thing!

It was prevalent enough that members of this board bought into it.

And yes, sometimes it is a good idea to admit that you have crackpots on your side, even if that also means that you need to point out that the crackpots on your side aren't the ones in control. Totally ignoring it leads to charges of hypocrisy.

ETA: In both cases, a bunch of fringe crazies have come up with the same loopy idea. The real difference between the two situations is that the Republicans have divorced themselves so far from reality that they are willing to entertain the crazy whereas the Democrats just pat them on the head and say "There there, have some dried frog pills, put on your tin foil hat and go sit in the corner till you feel better."

:thumbsup:

Check for Mike Hunt, Seymour Butz and I. P. Freely.

IOW not the same at all.

The two ideas are indeed the same, get the failed presidential candidate into the presidential position by electing them to the house, making them Speaker, then removing the President and VP so the Speaker becomes the new President.

What exactly do you think is different between the current idea and the one that Hillary's fringe supporters had in 2016?

It's a false equivalence to compare the GOP where the party and many of the legislators are discussing Trump running for Congress and he is considering the idea ...

... with nutty ideas some fringe people have discussed that no Democratic Party leaders and no Democratic legislators and no Democrats in any position of leadership have seriously considered.

And no one has done that, in fact, you are just repeating the very thing I said in my first post, the one you jumped all over.

I have said and will continue to say, the idea is the same one... because it is.

My first post on the subject notes that the difference was that the GOP leadership was taking the crazy seriously while the Democrat leadership didn't. But that reception doesn't change the fact that the crazies in the Republicans are spouting the same idea as crazy fringe Democrats did in 2016. It also doesn't make the idea any more or any less crazy.

So you deny you made a false equivalence. Fine. It was as clear as mud from your post given how you worded it.

I'm glad to see you recognize your mistake and are now clearing that up.

Feel free to quote me saying that the GOP and the Democrats are the exactly same. Go on I double-dog dare you.

I know you have trouble admitting you read it wrong and have entrenched your claims, but perhaps going back and reading what was actually said instead of what you desperately want to have been said, you might just discover that it was you that made the miskate. I know, shocking right.....

I quoted you exactly when this exchange started:

Since when are ideas political parties?

And a second question. Are the ideas the same or not, if not, why not, and no the reception of an idea by different parties does not make the idea different.

And that wasn't the post where this exchange started. You really are having trouble here.

:deadhorse

I'll take that as an admission that you know that you can't answer those questions without admitting you were wrong. Though I'd also point out that failure to admit when you got something wrong isn't the best position for a person who claims to be a skeptic.

You know, instead of digging the hole so deep, you'd have been far better off just fessing up and saying, "Opps, yeah I misread your post, my bad" several posts back.

So in your world one has to admit to a falsehood or keep beating your dead horse?

When one is wrong then it is a good idea to admit it rather than continue to dig the hole deeper because of pride, yeah.

In this case, you either truly believe that if two crazy elements of two political parties have the same idea then pointing out that they have the same idea somehow is the same as declaring the parties themselves are the same (big hint, it isn't) or you went off halfcocked because a common turn of phrase triggered you and you didn't bother reading what was actually said because you "knew" what was said due to your triggered state.

Either way, the longer you drag it out...

An excellent name for a band!

I just watched Sen. Joni Ernst (R) on The View. She was asked about some Republicans' attempts to re-write history concerning the 1/6 uprising. She went on at great length about the recent "bi-partisan Senate report" on the failures of intelligence and the police that day and stated there are several ongoing investigations so it "never happens again". But what she failed to mention is that there is not a single investigation into Trump's and other Congressmembers' part in that insurrection. I was disappointed none of the View hosts called her on that.

Putin described Trump as "colorful" and "talented" in an interview today:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-work-n1270561

Looks like Vlad is still hoping Donnie runs and wins in 2024 so he's continuing to play to his narcissism which is the one sure way to Donnie's heart...besides money.

And the crazies just keep on being crazy with MyPillow Loonie Lindell holding a rally:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mypill...e-for-fox-news

:crazy::crazy::crazy:

By his definition, every president but a couple were talented.

I see it as part of Lindell's legal defense strategy: his defamation of Dominion can't have been lies for personnel profit if he is willing to keep on spouting nonsense and spend tons of money to do so.

Or he's just nuts.

or it's part of a campaign to normalize a brazen lie as part of a long running scheme to seize power.

The "stop the steal" lies are going to be repeated by the right wing forever, and reinvigorated in every election they don't win. The right wing is laying the foundation for their pretext to seize power after a "stolen" election in plain sight.

Whether or not is is true isn't really that important when you consider the practical implications.

Lindell is nuts. But I agree that the right wing is going to repeat the Big Lie for a long, long time. It will eventually fade away as Trumpers die off leaving fewer idiots who swallowed it and history reveals even more strongly that is was just that: a lie.

Speaking of seizing power, that POS McConnell is saying it's "highly unlikely" he'd allow a Biden SCOTUS nominee to come up before the Senate if the GOP retakes it in 2022. Now, how is that for out and out denying the Constitutional right of the President to nominate and present for confirmation a new Justice? This is why I detest McConnell even more than Trump. At least Trump has somewhat of an excuse as he's mentally ill. McConnell is just an anti-democratic power, hungry POS.

"Fading away" is awfully optimistic.

This particular attack on the system didn't work, but it absolutely showed that the system is generally vulnerable. It's plainly clear that an attack through secretaries of states and other electoral administration offices is a valid way to tilt close elections Likewise it is clear that processes around the electoral college and vote certification are also extremely vulnerable to bad actors in places of trust.

I see no reason to believe that just because Trump's 2020 gambit failed, this vulnerability will not be further exploited. The fascist right is ensuring that their own faithful ideologues are in key positions of influence for future crisis. Republicans that took their duties seriously in 2020 and didn't rig the vote were identified and are being removed and replaced.

All the stories about poll workers and election officials being menaced make it clear. The fascists have identified the soft target in our system and are pushing hard. Assuming this is a passing danger is naive.

Here in Missouri, the local election authority is either the (elected) county clerks or (governor appointed) commissioners of various boards of elections.

Guess where all the jurisdictions run by boards are?

I don't understand this , "attack on the system" and "system is vulnerable" stuff. It isn't a vulnerability. These rules are very explicit. It is the system. It would be like saying basketball is vulnerable to free throws.

Not every trumper is a 80 year old boomer with one foot in the grave. Anecdotally speaking as a 40 something genX-er, I'd be hard pressed to count on one hand fellow Biden supporters in my social circle. I have also observed a rightward drift as my peer group ages. I have no reason to believe 20 somethings now are immune to such a pull. In otherwords, i do not share in your optimism that "Trumpers will die off".

the rules, of Basketball and Congress, are subject to interpretation by the referees.

Warning: Bobbing in progress.

This too shall pass. McCarthyism did. But it may be a while given how thoroughly the GOP has become the Dump party.

When Dump dies though, who's left to take over? No one. He's too narcissistic for such a protege. Even his kids are has-beens despite trying to still be relevant. There are a few GOP legislators vying to inherit Dump's followers. I don't think any of them look very promising as the next cult leader.

We don't seem to be dealing with rules with multiple meanings. It seems clear that congress can absolutely vote to reject electoral votes to throw the election to themselves.

Does someone interpret that differently here?

Nitpick: there is no such thing yet. Boomers are generally considered to have been born 1946-1964.

And get off my lawn ;)

No, they can't.
They would need alternative Electors from the State to do it.

Problem with that in a defamatation case, political motives are just as culpable as finiancial motives. You just have to prove a motive, what the specific motive is is non material as long as you can prove one.

I see there is a dispute.

You are not correct. There is a provision for if there is alternative electors, but not required.

I didn't say they were and I also said it would take a "long, long time". Trump supporters are generally older and white. Polls* show that voters 18-44 prefer Biden while Trump's biggest support come from those over 65, 45-65 are pretty much evenly split. It's true that people tend to become more conservative as they age, but that doesn't mean they become idiots and become authoritarian lovers. Also, our demographics are changing and the white voter will become less dominant as the percentage of people of color grows. Voters of color overwhelmingly vote Democratic regardless of age.

*https://www.statista.com/statistics/...-votes-age-us/

I'm in that bracket. I have gotten more democratic socialist in my old age.

Ditto.