Question for Republican voters
-
We now have testimony that clearly shows that Trump tried to engineer a coup. There were multiple attempts, with multiple paths.
Had he succeeded, how would you have felt about it?
-
@bison78 said in Question for Republican voters:
Trump
I'm not a Republican and I don't think I've ever voted Republican outside of a couple of local town elections where party is pretty unimportant.
However, this whole testimony and evidence thing is weak AF. Get over it.
As an aside, the voting system in the US sucks, it's abusable if not entirely gameable. I've described here before how a blockchain-based system where you could personally count every vote yourself if you wanted to (and look up your own ballot) would be a bulletproof system. Until we have that, there will always be loopholes - whether it's ballot harvesting, paying off the machine makers (we are seriously putting analog info into a digital format then printing it out in analog then feeding it into a machine for OCR then storing in a digital format for transmission through a privately owned ballot system where we can't track our own ballots or check the source code?). I'm not saying Trump would have won, it's clear that the 3 letter agencies hated the guy (they hated Hilary more though) and didn't want to see him back in there. The agencies have had a huge influence on our elections since somewhere around... I don't know... maybe 1963?
Exomotive Exocet, 91 Miata (VVT swap), E46 325xi
Fmr: F-Type R, Lancer-R -
@bison78 Remember, the vanilla isis coup insurrection is really the fault of the so-called left. lololol
I like evidence, I have yet to see any - maybe all of this can bankrupt a mentally unstable pillow magnate who also has a part in this mess:
-
@nickhasanexocet said in Question for Republican voters:
@bison78 said in Question for Republican voters:
However, this whole testimony and evidence thing is weak AF. Get over it.
'President Donald Trump’s last acting attorney general has told U.S. senators his boss was “persistent” in trying to pressure the Justice Department to discredit the results of the 2020 election.'
-
@bison78 If you firmly believe that there was fraud, which I believe Trump does, then being "persistent" that people look into it isn't a crime. The crime would be if the president admitted that he believed that there was no chance of fraud then pressured people anyway.
By the way, quoting a single word of testimony is bullshit.
Exomotive Exocet, 91 Miata (VVT swap), E46 325xi
Fmr: F-Type R, Lancer-R -
@bison78 Imagine being able to incite the gravy seals coup attempt along with behaving poorly and at least indirectly causing needless deaths during a pandemic because you "believe" something, with no objective data required.
That party of personal responsibility couldn't be more of a con, and those falling for the GQP as it exists now are brainwashed by what they "believe". When did what was once a party of caution and pragmatism become so addicted to what one might "believe"?
I wonder if 45 really "believed" any of it, or was just sowing seeds of discord at the behest of his Russian masters. He might be a pile of shit, but sometimes I think even he wasn't really behind half the stunts he pulled.
Beliefs without documentable facts do not justify what the GQP is trying to get away with.
-
@fintail said in Question for Republican voters:
When did what was once a party of caution and pragmatism become so addicted to what one might "believe"?
“ Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”
-Barry Goldwater
-
@nickhasanexocet said in Question for Republican voters:
However, this whole testimony and evidence thing is weak AF. Get over it.
Let's look at this pragmatically.
The size of the evidence piling up is far more damaging than it is exonerating and it's far more than a single person. Credible records of more than a few backroom conversations that have nothing to do with investigating potential fraud and everything to do committing fraud i.e. not "this needs to be investigated immediately, you need to get to the bottom of this" more "Just say it's fraud and we'll figure it out from there, and if you won't, I'll find someone who will." People resigned because they were pressured, including the AG.
It is, btw, illegal to coerce or attempt to coerce a federal employee to in engaging in political activity.
A president CANNOT "be persistent" in this way. There are legal channels for a president to demand justice publicly, but using his authority to pressure federal employees is, indeed, criminal.
5 U.S. Code § 7323
"(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—
(1)use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;"18 U.S. Code § 610
It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code, to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate. Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.The evidence is strong enough...at a minimum...to follow this path down to its ultimate end. I'm not suggesting you said it is, but this is clearly far from being a witch hunt.
-
@dipodomysdeserti let's make the distinction between Christians and "Christians" here. There is certainly an effort to weaponize Christianity politically, but how Christian these people are is very much open for debate. Despite popular rhetoric, it's not a conflict to be religious and a sensible and effective public servant. Point of data, our last governor was very well-liked on both sides of the aisle and was very effective despite being actively Christian. He came and spoke to my business class recently and his methodologies for governing were extremely sensible. Some notes I took.
Moderate in Tone and inclusive in process
Share ideas and positions.A desire to agree.
Open mind.
Seek and study.
Healthy dose of common sense.
Be ready and able to compromise (find common ground).I mean... that's pretty much what we all say we want from a politician right?
What is clear, however, is that religion can and is being used as a political tool...which itself seems antithetical to the tenets of Christianity itself. I guess that's the gist of this comment - to dissociate Christianity as a political tool, versus Christianity as a matter of faith.
As another point of reference, the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been consistent in the policy that people have a civic duty to be engaged politically but they do not endorse a political party or ideology. The closest I've personally experienced to politics in church meetings have been written statements read aloud in meetings around election time that reaffirm political neutrality and civic responsibility:
Obviously, issues related to doctrines and stances on issues play a role politically, but that's really no different than anyone else's frame of reference - based on a variety of personal factors and associations - bearing on their political ideologies. i.e. A Christian will allow their faith in influence their frame of reference on life just as much as an agnostic engineer might use their frame of reference to approach problems to be solved. That doesn't disclude either party from reaching sensible legislation that satisfies a diversity of problems.
In any case, I think we can both agree that a diversity of perspectives is the point of representative democracy and that homogony, on any one spectrum of thought, is a bad thing.
Some kind of sentient rodent - Overland Curator.
-
@hammerheadfistpunch Yes, Christianity (or any other religion) is not a monolith. However, I also don’t think you can tell someone they aren’t practicing their own faith correctly, particularly in regards to Christianity, where there are so many different offshoots, with most practitioners not even able to read or speak the original languages their spiritual texts were written in. It always pissed me off when I was younger and preachers would attack LDS’s from the pulpit (Matthew 7:5 anyone?). I believe in this case Goldwater was referring to Falwell flavored Christianity, which does believe the United States is supposed to be a Christian nation (according to their version of Christianity).
I come from Catholic and Russian Orthodox stock. Two of the oldest Christian churches in the world, which have always been political entities. You could argue they aren’t following the teachings of Christ (which I would agree most churches don’t), but they’ve greatly influenced the development of Christianity as a religion over the last few thousand years.
My sister and some friends are very devout Christians, but go to non denominational churches. They’re about as liberal as you can get, and I love them and can have very interesting and fulfilling conversations on spirituality with them. They get very frustrated at the current state of Christianity, but the reality is that Christianity has been like this for a very long time. My dad always taught us that the important part is your spirituality, not your religion, as religion is just another one of man’s creations (he was raised Catholic, but became a volunteer non denominational preacher when I was young, and used to really piss off certain elders).
I agree that it’s best to have lots of different POVs, both politically and spiritually, in governance. It forces people to compromise. And personally I have no preference for any religion, but I think it’s important that people look for meaning in life beyond the temporary things of this world, as long as they don’t forget that our original paradise was right here.
My apologies as that post could be seen as an attack on Christians, which it wasn’t meant to be. However, I do think the rise of the “religious right” (stupid term, because it ropes all religious people into one group) in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s are the origins of our current “no compromise” political system. Do half these people actually even try to follow the teachings of Christ, probably not, but many churches have developed around that model over the millennia.
-
@dipodomysdeserti I hear you completely. I think lumping the "religious right" together is a major problem for many reasons.
Some kind of sentient rodent - Overland Curator.
-
@hammerheadfistpunch said in Question for Republican voters:
@dipodomysdeserti I hear you completely. I think lumping the "religious right" together is a major problem for many reasons.
I’ve worked in Orthodox Jewish communities, and while they’re primarily conservatives, the only commonality they share with the real hardcore Republicans is their support for Israel (albeit for very different reasons). I knew a guy who ran a Jewish non profit, and he would get a lot of funds from “Jews for Jesus” organizations. He thought it was hilarious.
-
@dipodomysdeserti Totally off topic, but have you ever looked at any of Goldwater's photography? He really loved Arizona, and made some great photos. ASU has a ton of his images. If you ask the archivists nicely, they'll probably let you check them out. I believe Arizona Highways featured his work quite frequently.
-
@azw123 I’ll have to check those out. Very cool, especially the old Native American photos. My wife went to art school at UofA and they have nearly all of Ansel Adam’s works which was really cool to see.
-
@dipodomysdeserti Yes! I actually worked in the archives at the Center for Creative Photography for a few years. Got to spend a lot of time with Adams' fine prints and negatives.
-
@dipodomysdeserti Reminds me of this mysterious line:
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Some people made prescient remarks decades ago, that Goldwater line is up there with Ike's warning about what would become our spending black hole.
-
@azw123 Very cool! A buddy of mine and fellow Wildcat ended up making a career out of photography. Gets published in all sorts of newspapers and magazines now. Really cool seeing a kid I used to mosh in houses with making art for the big guys. His name is Cassidy Araiza.
-
@dipodomysdeserti I wonder if he's related to Fred Araiza, a photographer who worked at the Daily Star for many years. Fred was colleagues with my mother. Knowing Tucson, it seems likely.
-
@azw123 Yes, that would be a very Tucson thing. Biggest small town in the west.
-
@nickhasanexocet said in Question for Republican voters:
@bison78 If you firmly believe that there was fraud, which I believe Trump does, then being "persistent" that people look into it isn't a crime. The crime would be if the president admitted that he believed that there was no chance of fraud then pressured people anyway.
Yeah, but Trump didn't ask for an investigation. He pressured them to skip the investigation and go straight to declaring the results to be fraudulent. Multiple times.
I guess the answer to the original question I posed is denial and deflection.
