> Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside.
2000
> Nixon wasn’t the first vice president who had to preside over the opening of electoral votes that declared his opponent the winner, and he wasn’t the last. The most recent was Al Gore, who had conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida, effectively handing the state’s electoral votes, and the presidency, to George W. Bush.
I think those were the precedents that were used in 2020. There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy".
> There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy".
What is a bigger threat to democracy than a sitting president overturning an election and staying in power? Again, you're acting like it's totally normal for a president to abuse loopholes for this purpose. It's literally the end of democracy, because the government is no longer democratically elected.
I don't understand why you keep arguing against that point. A democracy only stays a democracy when election results are followed. Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost. Had he succeeded, democracy would have ended. You were incredibly close to that happening. It was only individuals, possibly only one, that kept your democracy alive - all else had failed.
> Again, you're acting like it's totally normal for a president to abuse loopholes for this purpose.
Not totally normal... just not an insurrection. Again, it's not that it was a great honorable thing to do, just that calling it an overthrow of the entire government is hyperbolic and has been pushed as a narrative for political purposes. You cannot take over by coercing politicians with a protest or a riot, you need at least part of the military on your side to enforce it as well.
> Trump tried to stay in power even though he lost.
Yes, this has happened before, Kennedy, Bush, and I'm sure a few others. The difference is literally who this person is. It's a bias against this specific person that used to be in entertainment business, appeared in movies and was a normal celebrity UNTIL he decided to run for office... if this guy is such a giant threat to democracy why are politicians like Obama, Biden etc., showing their concern after his attempted murder? Does Obama not understand he will end the country? You have to see the hyperbolic narrative when the same people who pushed this narrative are also now very concerned that people are acting on it. They don't believe that, they do not think Trump will really take over, they just say that to rally their base and win elections. Otherwise the same court ruling that expanded the powers of the president can be used by Biden to end this threat... why isn't Biden acting on it?
> Not totally normal... just not an insurrection. Again, it's not that it was a great honorable thing to do, just that calling it an overthrow of the entire government is hyperbolic and has been pushed as a narrative for political purposes. You cannot take over by coercing politicians with a protest or a riot, you need at least part of the military on your side to enforce it as well.
Why? Say Pence saw a legitimate danger to his own life or his family, and he counted fake electors. What stops Trump from becoming president? The constitution doesn't specify that this would be illegitimate. The only option left is the supreme court he stacked.
And say you're right - why did Trump even try convincing Pence until the last minute? Why did he paint that huge target on his pack while supporters were building gallows and shouting "Hang Mike Pence"? Why did he attempt all of this, when it could never have worked?
Once again, the military, who are sworn in to protect the constitution. If Pence felt physically threatened, the national guard steps in. This would only work if Trump had the backing of the military in order to prevent them from acting or enforcing the law.
> Why did he attempt all of this, when it could never have worked?
Maybe because he is a wreckless fool. That does not mean it was an insurrection. Ironically, using J6 for political gain and calling it an insurrection in order to prosecute him has backfired and made him more popular, just like all the other instances of going after Trump for things that clearly have been done by other presidents.
He has risen in popularity precisely because of this political double standard, when he could have faded into oblivion back in 2016 (let's not forget he was called racist, fascist even before J6).
> Once again, the military, who are sworn in to protect the constitution.
Ah, so the military would have to remove the constitutionally appointed president from office (remember, the constitution doesn't specify the VP can't be threatened, and Pence would have to weigh publicly stating that he was threatened against danger to his life and his family). The military would be going against their CoC. How healthy would that be for your democracy? What if they aren't courageous enough to do it?
I know you'll probably say that the constitution doesn't have to explicitly say the VP can't be threatened - remember that the only reason for this whole mess is that the constitution doesn't explicitly say the VP has to count the real electors. You can't read things into the constitution you're not 100% sure the stacked supreme court would also read.
> This would only work if Trump had the backing of the military in order to prevent them from acting or enforcing the law.
No, he doesn't need backing, he only needs them not to explicitly back his opponents.
for democracy?
> Maybe because he is a wreckless fool. That does not mean it was an insurrection.
So Trump tried everything in his power to overturn the election, and the Republican party tried everything to overturn the election, but it could have never worked and they were simply fools. It did almost work if one individual had decided differently, but it could have never worked. Am I understanding this correctly?
> Kennedy eventually was declared the winner in the Hawaii recount by 115 votes, but the two sets of certifications were waiting when the joint session of Congress convened. Democrats, including Rep. Daniel K. Inouye, were ready to lodge an objection if the GOP slate was counted, but the presiding officer — the Senate president, who also is the vice president: i.e., Nixon — pushed the issue aside.
2000
> Nixon wasn’t the first vice president who had to preside over the opening of electoral votes that declared his opponent the winner, and he wasn’t the last. The most recent was Al Gore, who had conceded the 2000 election after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida, effectively handing the state’s electoral votes, and the presidency, to George W. Bush.
I think those were the precedents that were used in 2020. There are definitely good reasons to think they are not good parallels to 2020, however the context of this entire conversation is how Trump incited an insurrection, which I think is overblown given that he was exploring his legal paths available like a few other instances in the past. Let's say he's still wrong, but it wasn't a "threat to democracy".
https://rollcall.com/2020/10/26/we-the-people-what-happens-w...