How can Trump-believers be persuaded that he lost an honest election?

[Chuck Naill]

Calling actions dumpster fires because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so because more people want things you don’t want than those who want what you want.

Or maybe I’m just being facetious to illustrate how hyperbolic language does not further conversation except for some virtual chest-bump shared between like-minded opinion holders.

I agree that it doesn’t further conversation.

[Boston Brian]

Calling actions dumpster fires because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so because more people want things you don’t want than those who want what you want.

Or maybe I’m just being facetious to illustrate how hyperbolic language does not further conversation except for some virtual chest-bump shared between like-minded opinion holders.

I agree that it doesn’t further conversation.

Donald Trump is an egomaniac who is incapable of admitting mistakes of any kind. He has surrounded himself with family members and staff who tell him that every word which passes from his lips is pure gold and that he is quite the smartest person in America.
His track record of hiring people to important roles in his administration, and then firing them when they say something that he disagrees with should speak for it self. He was never a Republican, but a life long support of the Democratic party, but he was a political opportunist.
His supports, or god forbid his new party will damage the Republican party and hand the next Presidential election to the Democratic candidate in the same way that Ross Perrott did to G H W Bush.

[dneal]

Calling actions dumpster fires because you don’t like it doesn’t make it so because more people want things you don’t want than those who want what you want.

Or maybe I’m just being facetious to illustrate how hyperbolic language does not further conversation except for some virtual chest-bump shared between like-minded opinion holders.

I agree that it doesn’t further conversation.

Donald Trump is an egomaniac who is incapable of admitting mistakes of any kind. He has surrounded himself with family members and staff who tell him that every word which passes from his lips is pure gold and that he is quite the smartest person in America.
His track record of hiring people to important roles in his administration, and then firing them when they say something that he disagrees with should speak for it self. He was never a Republican, but a life long support of the Democratic party, but he was a political opportunist.
His supports, or god forbid his new party will damage the Republican party and hand the next Presidential election to the Democratic candidate in the same way that Ross Perrott did to G H W Bush.

Well done.

[Chuck Naill]

For me, DT lacks the skill set to run a demogratic type government. Had he applied online, he would never have gotten an interview. Joe Biden would at least been given an interview. Bernie Sanders would get interview, but perhaps not been invited back. I think Biden could get a third interview and an offer.

[Ray-VIgo]

Trump would not have gotten an interview. Biden might have gotten an interview but then would forget to show up. Sanders might get an interview, show up, and be turned away at the door after appearing in the guise of an elderly hobo. On an abstract level, in a nation of about 330 million people, one would think we could do better. On a practical level, this is where we are.

[kazoolaw]

It's been investigated in... how many court cases, many presided by judges appointed under right-wing governments?

tinyurl.com/47zvb8uw

[Chuck Naill]

Trump would not have gotten an interview. Biden might have gotten an interview but then would forget to show up. Sanders might get an interview, show up, and be turned away at the door after appearing in the guise of an elderly hobo. On an abstract level, in a nation of about 330 million people, one would think we could do better. On a practical level, this is where we are.

Much experience with the online interview process?

[Ugly Old Guy]

How can Trump "believers" be persuaded he lost"?
The same way the Hillary "believers" can that Hillary lost. (ain't going to happen)

As for an "honest election" ... when was that? The 1700's? Early 1800's? There hasn't been one in the 66 years I been here. There won't be until election reforms prevent one of my brothers. my grand parents, and all my aunts and uncles from voting ... now that they are dead.
Wisconsin did find a couple thousand fraudulent votes. Not enough to change the outcome, but over 2,000 absentee ballots were identical, down to the same not completely filled in circles being blank between 8:00 and 12:00, never folded (Wisconsin folds them when they are mailed out, and normally, the voters fold them so they fit in the return envelope.)

You need ID to cash your payroll check, use a debit/credit card, get on a Greyhound bus or a commercial aircraft, to enter some Federal, State, and county buildings, to operate a motor vehicle (to include motorcycles and scooters/mopeds over 49cc) depending upon age/how old a person looks, to buy tobacco products or alcohol, fill a prescription, buy a firearm ... why not to vote?
The Dem's excuse for not backing ID to vote: "some minorities don't have ID ..." is B.S. They have cars, they buy tobacco products and alcoholic beverages. enter those federal/state/county buildings while [I][i][u]not[i an inmate, and everything else, just like a non-minority person does.
I'm pretty sure one of my grand father's would be shocked (and upset) to learn he's voted Democrat in every election held since his early passing in 1966 ... and no doubt more than once in each of those elections ....

There is no such thing as an "honest election". Never has been, never will be.

[Skwerlmasta]

The heated political rhetoric, on both sides of the aisle, isn't helping anything. There is no longer political discourse, no discussions of issues using reason and logic, and we no longer have the ability as a society to agree to disagree on issues.
Instead we have name calling without substance, each side demonizing the other as evil Hitlers bent on total destruction.

To wit the opening of this thread:
"must coddle right-wing delusion"

Opening a discussion in this manner is opening it in bad faith, a complete unwillingness to enter with an open mind and to engage the discussion on its merits. That was equally true of the title, which amounts to no more than, "How can I convince you you're wrong." You most certainly won't convince anyone of anything in this manner.

Substantive discussion can only come on neutral terms. There must be a willingness to listen and to consider which is not there when the discussion starts with insult. Each side of this dispute is stuck in their echo chambers, absolute that they are correct, and unwilling to look at any source that disagrees with their sensibilities. The fact is that none of us possess the absolute truth, the most that we can do is to seek it in earnest and in the hope that we can get that little bit closer. It is a sad condition that so few try.

[Chuck Naill]

Arw there any neutral terms amoung the membership?

Can one wear a thong and remain sanitary?

If we can answer these questions, perhaps we can move forward.

[kazoolaw]

Skwerlmasta kicks off campaign for neutral discussion calling out bad faith coddlers, claiming they are closed minded and unable to discuss issues on their merits, then wonders why people doubt his sincerity.

And Chuck, linking Skwerlmasta's post with your question is the nastiest takedown on record.

[Chuck Naill]

Had a thought this AM that one benefit of DT not winning is that I do not have to be aware of him. I do not think the average citizen needs to be constantly aware of those occupying high offices. I mean, just do your damn job. You asked for it so just do it. Same with Biden. It has been your life ambition. Just do it.

Also, I do not need a person in office that does everything I like, but I do need some maturity. It is not about you!!

These folks that show up to storm the capital must not have a life otherwise.

I'm enjoying some normalcy. Everybody needs an advocate, but some more than others. An immigrant is just trying to survive. Hold can I fault them for trying? I am not less because they get a leg up.

Yesterday my nine year old grand daughter and I went to the market. A man was sitting on the side walk with a sign requesting money. I give him something every weekend when he is there. I gave Olivia $5 to give him. She talked about him all the way home and even this morning.

Yesterday on the way home she was asking about the man and it made me tear up. She asked me if I was crying. I said yes because I was so happy that she was concerned about the man on the side walk.

At the point where we touch others, it really does not matter who is in public office. As disciples of Jesus we know that our neighbor are those we encounter whose needs we are able to meet or contribute. I am sure other philosophies agree. What I do not need to do is shame the man and tell him to get a damn job. I knopw that there have been times where I was alone and jobless. It's not always our fault we have needs. As Biden said, sometimes we need a hand and sometimes we need to give a hand. Not a bad way to life IMHO.

[Pendragon]

Had a thought this AM that one benefit of DT not winning is that I do not have to be aware of him.

Yet you just mentioned him. Is that not being aware of him? The news media won't let us forget about their cash cow so easily.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/m...solved-it.html

I'm enjoying some normalcy. Everybody needs an advocate, but some more than others. An immigrant is just trying to survive. Hold can I fault them for trying? I am not less because they get a leg up.

Immigrants are just trying to survive, and the vast majority come here legally. Illegal aliens, on the other hand, come here in violation of the law and expect to be rewarded for it. How do you think that makes the legal immigrants feel? They go through a bunch of paperwork, wait until the are approved for entry, and have to jump through all kinds of hoops in the process. There is no reason those here illegally could not have done the same.

I don't agree with those who demonize Mexicans and Central Americans, and think that is counterproductive. Enforcing immigration laws equally among all nationalities and ethnic groups is hardly injustice, though. When states declare themselves sanctuary states, they are openly flouting the law. That does not work too well in a nation founded on the rule of law, especially when encouraging that lawlessness is motivated by political ambitions. Those same states become very unhappy indeed when people disregard state laws. "Do as I say and not as I do" just doesn't work.

[TSherbs]

Apparently, Trump wants to continue with his lies that the election was stolen in his impeachment trial, resulting in the resignations of his legal dream team. But we will see what is actually presented next week.

[kazoolaw]

Apparently, Trump wants to continue with his lies that the election was stolen in his impeachment trial, resulting in the resignations of his legal dream team. But we will see what is actually presented next week.

TS, let not your hear be troubled.

[Ray-VIgo]

An interesting development this week is that a study by Robert Pape and Keven Ruby showed little that the rioters arrested for entering the Capitol look different from other right-wing rioters in the recent past. The Capitol rioters seemed to look much more like middle-class, white America than like skinheads, Klansmen, or others. In fact, Oath Keepers, III Percenters, Proud Boys made up only a small minority. Most of the rioters studied were older and better-established in the economic mainstream. It begs the question of whether the actions are indicative of something much larger, namely widespread discontent of millions of people to the right of center of the political spectrum, not just a few thousand Trump supporters. If so, it represents a precarious political environment overall.

On the question of the impeachment trial. It strikes me that it actually plays into Trump's hands. It gives him a fresh platform, but one where he is free from the responsibilities of office. I recall the the time the House tried to remove the chairmanship of and to censure John Quincy Adams. Adams deliberately provoked the measure so that then he could use the cover of his defense to attack the institution of slavery. Trump is not as savvy as Quincy Adams certainly, but if handed the soap box of defense, which carries a wide swath of speech, he may use it as a megaphone to stir things up further.

[TSherbs]

Of course Trump will try to stir things up. It's his MO. And the spark of the riot on the Capitol.

[dneal]

An interesting development this week is that a study by Robert Pape and Keven Ruby showed little that the rioters arrested for entering the Capitol look different from other right-wing rioters in the recent past. The Capitol rioters seemed to look much more like middle-class, white America than like skinheads, Klansmen, or others. In fact, Oath Keepers, III Percenters, Proud Boys made up only a small minority. Most of the rioters studied were older and better-established in the economic mainstream. It begs the question of whether the actions are indicative of something much larger, namely widespread discontent of millions of people to the right of center of the political spectrum, not just a few thousand Trump supporters. If so, it represents a precarious political environment overall.

On the question of the impeachment trial. It strikes me that it actually plays into Trump's hands. It gives him a fresh platform, but one where he is free from the responsibilities of office. I recall the the time the House tried to remove the chairmanship of and to censure John Quincy Adams. Adams deliberately provoked the measure so that then he could use the cover of his defense to attack the institution of slavery. Trump is not as savvy as Quincy Adams certainly, but if handed the soap box of defense, which carries a wide swath of speech, he may use it as a megaphone to stir things up further.

The impeachment trial (which is absolutely ridiculous in its merit, legality and feasibility) is interesting. The easiest comment to make is to point out just how truly deranged Trump has made the Democrat party. They, like some posters here, are oblivious to it and simply revel in their madness.

Alan Dershowitz has a "podcast" of sorts now. I haven't listened to it since he weighed in on the unconstitutionality of impeaching a President who is not the President (and Justice Roberts confirmed that with his refusal to preside), but I liked his strategy of Trump just ignoring it simply because it isn't Constitutional and they have zero authority to conduct this "trial".

That would go against his nature, and although I think he's much more savvy than people give him credit for there is surely a great temptation to "unload". He could tie it up for months, and introduce all sorts of evidence the kleptocracy certainly doesn't want in public light. It would be entertaining, if nothing else; but I think Professor Dershowitz' initial instinct is correct and he should just ignore it as some silly invalid proceeding by petty vengeful lunatics.

[Ray-VIgo]

Interestingly, the process of impeachment and trial began as a very unclear process to even the Framers. Both the Virginia and New Jersey Plans contained impeachment, but they differed. Over time, the framers settled on the possibility of impeaching and trying the president (not just lower officials), and other federal officials, but for quite some time it remained unclear exactly how to do it. One idea was to have a panel comprised of the Governors of the states decide on whether to remove the president from office. Another suggestion was to have the Senate decide the matter. Ultimately, Hamilton put forward the process we are more or less familiar with today, based on British legal thinking: that the House would impeach (the House being the "lower chamber" and the chamber of people) and that the Senate would try, with a super-majority needed to convict and Remove (the argument being that only the Senate had the aristocratic nature, the solemnity, and the legitimacy to actually pass on the question). The Chief Justice, likely having a legal background (though there is no "learned in the law" provision) could preside over the trial. At the time, the composition of the Senate was decided by state legislatures rather than the electorate directly.

The question of whether the trial can take place of a former President, now private citizen, remains subject to challenge. The framers debated the question of process over a sitting President, and at the time, it makes sense that such was their chief concern. In drafting a Constitution, one would generally focus more on the issue of how to impeach and potentially remove a sitting Chief Executive rather than the question of someone who has left office. They were very much close in time to the American Revolution and still very much concerned with the potential for the President to take on despotic measures.

[TSherbs]

Also interesting to me, although not directly about questioning the election outcome, Rep Matt Gaetz of Florida (who, lacking geographic sense, says that he supports "prairie populism") urged the crowd in Wyoming where he spoke earlier this week to bring the "battle" and "war" to Washington (as opposed to fighting "battles abroad") and then bring Washington "to its knees."

The inflammatory rhetoric of assault on Washington continues.