RNC Calls January 6, 2021 Legitimate Political Discourse

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Bill Huffman, Feb 9, 2022.

  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    For completeness, here's a good description of the December 8, 2020 Safe Harbor date.

    By the end of the day, the nation was set to reach the so-called safe harbor deadline, which is generally accepted as the date by which all state-level election challenges — such as recounts and audits — are supposed to be completed.

    Broadly, that means that President Trump’s efforts to overturn the presidential election are nearing the end of the line. After Tuesday, state courts would most likely have to throw out any new lawsuit challenging the election.

    The Nation Reached ‘Safe Harbor.’ Here’s What That Means.
  2. LevelUP

    LevelUP Active Member

    You brought up a lot of interesting points.

    The TED video was, in fact, pre-election, that's correct.

    You're right the electoral votes should be all that decide each election. Once the states certify the results, that should be the end of it, with everything else being a formality.

    One can only speculate what Trump's intentions were. Trump isn't an oracle and had no idea what the crowd would do, nor did he directly call on them to act out in violence.

    I feel like Trump was trying to pressure states to decertify the results. He wanted Pence to somehow buy some time so states could take a "closer look" "wink-wink" at the election results.

    Then if at least one state decertified the results, he would have some leverage to make his case to congress to invoke the power to elect him as president, bypassing all the electoral votes.

    This all happening was a hail-mary shot with slim to no odds.

    But Trump is a fighter, and he wanted to go down fighting. It was a crazy move, but 2020 was a crazy year, that's for sure!
  3. LevelUP

    LevelUP Active Member

    You don't know what the definition of a lie is.
  4. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    Something tells me your definition is a bit different than mine. Or the dictionary's.
  5. LevelUP

    LevelUP Active Member

    Well, it will start getting pretty petty if we start challenging each other word by word.
  6. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Your speculations are not what the evidence indicates in this case. For example, there is no such thing as decertify the results. Trump wanted Pence to declare Trump the winner on January 6. People that worked at high level positions within the Trump administration know the answers to the questions that you speculate incorrectly about. You are poorly informed. Perhaps you should read up on it?
    Rachel83az likes this.
  7. LevelUP

    LevelUP Active Member

    “He can decertify the results or send them back to the states for change and certification,” Trump said. “He can also decertify the illegal and corrupt results and send them to the House of Representatives for the one vote for one state tabulation.”

    So legal or not, Trump was pushing for states to decertify as I said in my previous post.
  8. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    Testimony presented at the last hearing made it clear that Trump much preferred Pence to just declare Trump the winner on January 6. You are correct though that trying to send it back to the state legislatures was also an option they were pushing Pence to do, especially if he didn't want to just declare Trump the winner. That option to push it back to the state legislatures was apparently pushed more by some of Trump's advisors like Eastman than by Trump himself. Although that was the option publicly known prior to the last January 6 committee hearing.

    “Donald Trump wanted Mike Pence to do something no other vice president has ever done,” said Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.), the committee chairman. “The former president wanted Pence to reject the votes and either declare Trump the winner or send the votes back to the states to be counted again. Mike Pence said no. He resisted the pressure. He knew it was illegal. He knew it was wrong.”

    Trump aides told him that using Pence to overturn election was illegal

    BTW for future reference. Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. "her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    That's an oddly positive language for an attempted crime of this magnitude. One can say that anyone attacking a cop is "a fighter, and he wanted to go down fighting", but that would be a kind of take only outlaws would have.
  10. LevelUP

    LevelUP Active Member

    Straw man occurs when someone argues that a person holds a view that is actually not what the other person believes. Instead, it is a distorted version of what the person believes. So, instead of attacking the person's actual statement or belief, it is the distorted version that is attacked.

    1. At Least 20 Million Watched Jan. 6 Hearing, you're lying.

    That implies my view is that zero people watched Jan. 6 Hearing which is false.

    2. Having a crowd attack and injure 140 policemen in order to try to stop the official electoral college count is not legal.

    That's implying my view that attacking police is legal or/and I believe Trump ordered such an attack which is false.

    If you want to disagree with my opinions fine, but don't misrepresent them!
  11. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    1. I would not call Dustin's statement a strawman argument although your response is a good example of a strawman argument. Dustin's statement no way implied that zero people watched. That is a strawman argument. He just presented an article that estimated 20 million viewers which simply countered your statement.
    Personally, I wouldn't call that a lie just a gross exaggeration. But, I accept that others could see it differently. But this aspect wasn't really used by Dustin to shot down your argument and so was not a strawman argument even if we all agreed that your statement was an exaggeration and not a lie.

    2. My statement was not a strawman nor a misrepresentation of your position. My statement was a simple counter to your assertion that January 6 was actually legitimate political discourse. Doing something illegal should obviously be illegitimate such as injuring police while they are performing their duty.

    Which all boils down to the fact that you're the one that is actually misrepresenting our arguments plus you apparently still don't understand what strawman means.
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2022
  12. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well, that depends on what the cop was doing.
  13. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I found this quote very amusing.

    And DeSantis just got the New Yorker profile treatment. (The headline: "Can Ron DeSantis Displace Donald Trump as the G.O.P.'s Combatant-in-Chief?") That story includes this telling line: "Articulate and fast on his feet, he has been described as Trump with a brain."

    The article also had this quote:
    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis takes 39% in a poll of the Republican presidential primary in New Hampshire, while Trump is at 37%. No other potential GOP contender manages double-digit support, with former Vice President Mike Pence in third place at 9%.

  14. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Its to early for 2024 predictions. Events evolve very fast and 2 years our days is a lot of time.
    I personally can see DeSantis as GOP presidential candidate.
    As to 2022 elections GOP hopes/needs for a Red Wave to exist in November. But the raw numbers may not be there just because there are fewer
    and fewer seats that are theoretically in play. Maybe 10 to 15 practically but some say 35, I can only speculate.

  15. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    It would be interesting if someone went back through news articles for the last century and compared how often the person getting the most buzz two years in advance (like DeSantis) actually end up being that party's nominee. I'd bet it's not very often.
  16. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    Not exactly your stated question, but this is illuminating


    Funny enough, Howard Dean (pre-scream) was noted in that article as the front runner. Of course in 2004 the eventual nominee was John Kerry.
  17. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    All responses are good and I agree with them. I notice though that one potential good response has not yet been voiced.

    "Trump with a brain" is actually a very scary prospect. If Trump had a brain he much more likely would have succeeded in his coup attempt, for example. Although I hasten to add that I have no real reason to believe that DeSantis has similar severe ethical and moral flaws that would make him as dangerous to our democracy as Trump. So I really don't think his governance would be as dangerous as a real "Trump with a brain".
  18. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    So, Nixon, basically?
    Bill Huffman likes this.
  19. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    Nixon at least had the good sense to resign!
  20. Vicki

    Vicki Active Member

    Trump has poisoned the Republican Party. While I mostly tend to lean toward Democratic policy, I have occasionally voted for Republicans when I have felt they were the better candidate. Now, it seems more like every move any Republican makes is to try to ensure Trump gets back in office. It’s not about them anymore and it’s certainly not about the American public. Trump is all about Trump. I don’t understand why so many people worship him. Yes, I mean worship. Any Republican with a brain would make moves to get Trump OUT of politics all together. They would unite and get someone with intelligence, class, and dignity as their candidate. Ron DeSantis isn’t it.
    Bill Huffman likes this.

Share This Page