• Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Same, but it’s also troubling because it suggests how easy all this underhanded shit must be for the bad actors with half a brain that know how to shut the fuck up and quietly enjoy their ill-gotten gains.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m a Republican that does their own Research and even though the election hasn’t happened yet I ALREADY KNOW TRUMP LOST UNFAIRLY because of Sleepy Joe Biden being UNFAIR!

  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Duh.

    It’s astounding to me that a second January sixth isn’t at the top of people’s minds this go round.

    Not because it’ll be successful (although there’s always a chance) but because we already have elected officials who believe that trump won the 2020 election and there will only be more this time around.

    What’s the long term effect of legitimizing disbelief in a functioning democracy? America never was one, but what does it mean when there’s double or triple digit numbers of elected officials who publicly say so?

    The usual explanation for distrust in government has nothing to do with people recognizing reality and changing their views based on it but instead blames that change on lack of bread and circuses, no basics of life and no distraction from reality.

    We certainly don’t have the basics of life, but the distraction machine is running like a champ slaps hood you could fit like seven more dissociative technologies in this sucker!

    What combination of lack of basic necessities and distractions are driving people’s belief (true or false!) that the election was stolen and that our fake democracy is actually fake?

    • NutWrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The only good news is that if they try to storm the Capitol again, they’re not going to have Trump and his “acting” Secretary of Defense giving them cover this time.

      Those troops are going to be loaded for bear.

      • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        that’s not good news though.

        seeing americans get blasted by either the national guard or capitol police isn’t gonna build trust in the fake american democracy.

        seeing that one woman get shot in a situation where she presented no threat at all was bad enough.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          She presented a threat and I don’t know what mental gymnastics you have used to argue that she didn’t.

          You don’t fucking accidentally invade the capital building. No one has ever called their spouse and said “hey honey I was trying to buy milk at 7-11 and for some reason I am in the Speaker of the House’s office. She seems mad at me.”

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

            • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              If you’re referring to the woman who was killed during the January 6th Insurrection, she was a traitor. She was an Air Force veteran who took an oath upon enlistment that she would faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

              And then when her guy didn’t win, she decided she would forget her oath and try to overthrow the very Constitution she swore to protect. Honestly, fuck her, I don’t wish she had died, but she’s not a martyr, nor should she be.

              Your reasoning is why Democrats never fucking do anything: it’s all about the what-ifs. Republicans don’t give a fuck about the what-ifs and they’ve accomplished countless numbers of their goals over the years.

              So enough: if people want to try Insurrection 2.0: Electric Boogaloo, fucking mow them down like they so badly want to do anyone who isn’t a fucking white, cis, heterosexual male who dry humps their Bible every fucking night thinking that makes them a good Christian.

              Your logic and your comment are asinine, and you’re completely oblivious to the other side of your coin: We should just do nothing because stopping fucking traitors from overthrowing their government because their dipshit lost may hurt the perception the American people have of their government. Yep, better just let fascism happen then because people may look at the government, the same one that drone strikes women and children in the Middle East, what, may be too fucking tough on terrorists and insurrections?

              Please.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                She was an Air Force veteran who took an oath upon enlistment that she would faithfully defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

                I’m sure from her thoroughly deluded, brain-rotted perspective that’s exactly what she was doing - protecting the Constitution from a domestic enemy seeking to steal the election.

                Practically no one sees themselves as the villain of their own story.

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          She shouldn’t have been forcefully attempting to enter a restricted area while having guns actively pointed at her while being told to stop, then.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            the state justifies its actions. i’m not asking if the justifications are accurate or not, but what the outcomes of those actions are with regards to peoples trust and perception of the government.

            regardless of weather many people were willing to approve of the state’s justification, what will happen to our trust in our government when january 6 part 2 participants are getting hosed down with m855a1 this time?

            • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              what will happen to our trust in our government when january 6 part 2 participants are getting hosed down with m855a1 this time?

              Me personally? Trust immediately restored. Jan 6 showed how fragile our system really is with the right people pulling the right levers. It was public knowledge that something big was being organized, yet security was not increased and the national guard was not called in (though I wouldn’t be surprised if they were on standby as it was shortly after George floyd protests/riots). Rioters accessed offices of officials and came VERY close to the senators themselves. Had they not reconvened and certified the election later that night, we would’ve had a constitutional crisis which was one possible goal of the whole thing.

              Bottom line, I don’t give a fuck how a bunch of actual seditionists that worship trump as a god emperor feel. You can’t just storm the goddamn capitol of the country. If preventing that requires mowing down seditionists, that’s not the government’s fault and not my concern.

            • Zink@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              You may have just picked a bad example, because I think the state’s stance doesn’t really factor into many people’s opinions on this particular shooting.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Idk, my experience talking to people who claimed to have voted democrat showed otherwise. I had a lot of older people saying they didn’t have to shoot her. Someone who lives a couple of roads over even said the “just shoot her in the leg” line.

                I guess for people who are old enough to remember like maybe Kent state forwards there’s a real bad association with cops or national guard shooting anyone protesting, demonstrating or rioting or whatever and I think if it goes off bigger this time around that’s a bigger problem.

            • _tezz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              Personally, I feel that preventing fascist traitor scum from installing a dictator and subjugating the democracy would give me more trust in my government. The state would not have to justify that action to me, that is perfectly just already.

            • Xhieron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I can think of few things that would restore and bolster my faith in government more than watching the arms of the state rapidly, effectively, and effortlessly put down an active, armed rebellion against the democratically elected institutions of the nation.

              Anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat the legitimate government of the United States should be met with lethal force, preferably while on camera being broadcast live.

              And that includes anyone who marches on the Capitol to unseat a legitimate Republican government.

              Flowing from the rule of law is the peaceful transfer of power, and flowing from that is the presence of loyal opposition.

              A government that defends the people’s ability to select it with the means entrusted to it is doing exactly what it should. The bitch my state sends to the Senate is an utter slimeball whom I despise with the very core of my being. But the people of my state in their wisdom sent her to DC, so anybody who charges that building with designs on her life should immediately eat a red, white, and blue bullet. If the government fails to defend that bitch, then it has failed me, and my faith in it will have been tarnished.

              That’s my perception of the government in such an event. I certainly don’t speak for everyone.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Okay so if this becomes a pattern how do we break the cycle of having to dome protesters every election cycle? Historically it hasn’t been good for the state to have constant uprisings no matter if you support their cause or not.

                • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You’d have to dismantle the right wing propaganda network that’s being coopted by hostile powers to damage trust in our government and sow discontent amongst the populace.

                  But unfortunately, the right would rightly see this as an attack on them, because their media ecosystem is the generator of this shit…

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          she presented no threat at all

          Yeah I’m just gonna smash through the only barrier between me and the senators and hope security realizes I just want an autograph and am not trying to hurt any government officials. Genius plan. That said, she DID present a threat by her actions, and a larger potential threat as several rioters were armed. They did their job when they shot her and if anything, showed incredible restraint by waiting until she was literally climbing into the room.

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

            • CouncilOfFriends@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              On that topic, in my estimation it is going to be a far worse time for everybody if we normalize a violent coup whenever Fox News radicalizes a critical mass of reprogrammable meatbags. After January 6th, even conservatives were briefly able to condemn attempted treason before they found enough room to stand in the shadow of their dear leader. Most Americans did not have a great perception of the state of government, however I’ve never actually met anyone who believes rioters should have been allowed to break through barricades to kill members of congress.

        • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          She was carrying a backpack big enough to hold a bomb, climbing through a hole in a door that was barricaded, being warned by armed guards not to, and was backed by thousands of angry rioters ready to follow her in.

          I’m pretty sure she represented a threat.

          If your house were surrounded by people yelling and waving bats and batons and pipes and you barricaded your door against them entering, would you feel threatened by someone who broke your window and started climbing in?

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            hey i’m just gonna copy and paste this into my reply to everyone else who got in after the first person: i’m not arguing about the state’s justification of its actions i’m asking what happens to americans perception of our government when we see whats her name get shot x100 during the next january 6. if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

            • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              if you wanna talk about that i’ll reply but if not i won’t.

              You shouldn’t have brought it up if you weren’t prepared to discuss it.

              No one is asking you to debate this first part:

              seeing that one woman get shot in a situation

              We all know a woman got shot by the government and was justified by the government.

              However, YOU made this statement:

              where she presented no threat at all

              And you are 100% nothing more than a troll IF you claim it’s not reasonable to have to justify such a position, YOUR position, as stated by you.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                Okay, I’ll defend what I said so that it’s clear that I brought it up not to troll or engage in bad faith but as an example of the effects of state violence on public trust.

                Regardless of weather or not you believe the states defense of its agents actions, you can’t deny that the woman who was shot was unarmed (I think I saw some news articles trying to call her armed because she had a pocketknife, but come on!) and that there were alternatives to deadly force available. I saw them discussed online and heard even my very vote blue no matter who style lib neighbors say them when we talked about the news.

                Some of the stuff I remember hearing people say was “push her back through”, “push her back through with a stick” “let her come through and arrest her” “beat people trying to come through with a stick” and “shoot into the air/ground to disperse them”.

                I’m not bringing those things up to then give you the opportunity to ask me to defend them, but to provide examples of normal everyday people’s responses to seeing the states agents kill someone who looked like them or someone they knew and only became more sympathetic as her background was reported on and pictures of her from before January 6 surfaced.

                I also know that she was brought up in the news as a victim of state violence and her name was used as a kind of dogwhistle for stop the steal type right wingers and even normal republican types for little while.

                I don’t remember it because I don’t run in those circles but it had a cadence like “Sharon bobbit” or something.

                The effect of that one death was very polarizing and did little to build broader trust in government except for with people who took the controversial “I don’t like those people/they’re criminals so good riddance” view.

                So that’s why I brought it up and specifically said that she posed no threat. Not because I wanted to defend the people who did January 6 or the ones who use her name as a shibboleth but because it’s a good example of state violence suppressing January 6 prompting a negative response.

                • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I appreciate that you expounded on your overall point, but I don’t think you defended what I quoted at all, and that’s the only bit I think you are really on the hook to defend here.

                  where she presented no threat at all

                  I won’t list all the examples others already gave you of how easy it is to see that from the point of view of anyone on the other side of that specific door at that specific time, she was indeed a threat. That’s not “accepting the government’s justification” that’s using my own eyeballs and not pretending I don’t understand the context of what was happening. Anyone claiming she’s not a threat at that moment is willfully ignoring every other detail of the situation.

            • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I think most Americans didn’t have any perception change of their government when they saw that chick get shot. If anything they were shocked by what levels conservative civilians were ready to go to for their completely unfounded beliefs.

              • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                If anything they were shocked by what levels conservative civilians were ready to go to for their completely unfounded beliefs.

                And just how far the government was willing to let them go before they took off the kid gloves and began to consider treating them even somewhat like the George Floyd protestors were treated.

                It was rather eye opening to see the dichotomy between law enforcement response between protests that started non violently protesting in the street vs an angry mob marching on Congress while they actively tried to do a peaceful transfer of power.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                I agree with you that most Americans were shocked in general or didn’t care but I think there was a significant amount of people whose perceptions were maybe changed.

                Do you think the scale would change things? If this becomes a pattern, what’s the way out?

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                There’s a lot of people in the replies saying something along these lines but none as succinctly put as you.

                What’s the right way for the state to deal with “idiots” when it doesn’t care what they think? Certainly after this next January 6 the state can’t just kill them, what’s the response from the state you’d like to see?

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Same thing happened with Bannon before the 2020 election. It won’t make a difference to the cult

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    “That may not be necessary,” Stone continued. “There are technical, legal steps we have to take to try to have a more honest election.”

    Fixed it: “That may not be necessary,” Stone continued. “There are technical, legal steps we have to take to try to have the appearance of a more honest election.”

    Stone noted during the conversation that the Trump campaign is attempting to change state voting laws and plans to immediately file a number of lawsuits seeking to change the results should the former president lose again, as Trump allies did in Michigan and several other states in 2020.

    This is looking grim. We might have to actually fight on this one. Sigh…

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      By Jan 2025 the only outcomes are Trump has won without conflict or the election is a contested mess and congress is deadlocked on certification and they will have moved to the vote by state in the house. In which case trump will be elected.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s the newest ARG, a Get Out / The Purge crossover where half the population pretends laws don’t exist and the other half has to try to keep their democratic institutions! Hijinks will ensure in this surreal tragicomedy Asshole Reality Game, brought to you by Koch Brothers ©!

  • JimSamtanko@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This shit is going on and yet there’s STILL people whining and suggesting no one vote.

    It blows my mind.

    • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Stone and a significant portion of those people are on the same side. A larger amount are useful idiots who prefer to moralize about what should be instead of doing the base amount to prevent more of the harm they profess to care about.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I wonder if they’re actually dumb enough to try the false electors scheme twice in a row?

    They got caught are being convicted right now for doing it in 2020, and everybody is expecting it now.

    • Scotty_Trees@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      They will. And they’ll take it to the Supreme Court, where <checks notes> they’ll just install Trump as the winner of the election. Mark my words.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Humbug. I take cynicism lightly.

        They didn’t get past mailing in the forged documents last time, and they have a worse chance this time.

        They’d have to do something different, like state legislatures passing laws that say they don’t have to listen to appointed electors.

        That’s already failed, but that’s the tack I think they’ll try to refine, since they’re approaching it so poorly right now and direct forgeries don’t work

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I would think that failure just exposes points of improvement. They failed before, but now they know how to succeed. :(

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think that’s just distant fatalism.

            It’s not like they can forge the documents better this time.

            They’ll have to try completely different, like changing State legislatures to somehow ignore election results or claim that the state can use their own electors.

            Most of the people who forged the documents or participated in the conspiracy the last time are going to be pretty busy in trial or testifying in trials.

            Dozens of people, anyone significantly involved in the fake electors scheme is facing charges or will be facing charges soon, many of them have already pled guilty.

    • m13@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Whatever the result they’re going to keep trying again. Why wouldn’t they when there are virtually no consequences? Fascists don’t give a damn about what election results say, they’re always going to try to gain power by any means necessary.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well that’s what I mean.

        There are so far very severe consequences. Lawyers have been disbarred, dozens of people have been charged, the trials are ongoing right now and more charges are occurring from more agencies. there are a whole lot of legal consequences which is why i am wondering if they’re going to do it again.

        They don’t care about election results, but they do care about legal consequences.

        • Censored@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          They only care about the legal consequences that affect THEM. There’s always another idiot lawyer ready to get disbarred.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Right, that’s the nice part about legal consequences for them. They care about those legal consequences.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      They are dumb enough to try a bunch of other stuff, including violence, again though.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The trials are being sandbagged by republican judges, nobody is actually getting punished for trying to steal the election. They’re gonna do it again.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s happening more with The classified documents case, not with the fake electors.

        Good news, The fake elector charges and trials are actually going through without a hitch, have a lot of defendants informing on co-defendants. Several defendants have already pled guilty, participants are being arrested, more charges are coming, there’s actually a lot going on with this case.

        • Censored@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          But who is the defendant in the fake electors trial? This isn’t one where Trump himself is on the docket, right?

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            It would be strange if he wasn’t eventually charged since he was definitely part of the plot.

            This is a case that goes across eight states with dozens of defendants, some have already pled guilty, many are working with the prosecutors to provide testimony against peer and higher co-defendants.

            Trump hasn’t been charged yet, but people are still getting charged for the fake electors scheme every month, and since he was on the phone with these people convincing them to forge and mail in the documents, I can’t see why he wouldn’t be charged.

            It’s being investigated right now as to how to charge Trump, since he was personally involved in this scheme.

            He’ll probably be one of the last people charged.

            Especially now that he was already convicted once and it isn’t taboo or anything to charge him with felonies.

            There are so many defendants, this was such a huge conspiracy that most of the trial still haven’t started, and several defendants haven’t been arraigned.

            But it’s going forward!

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          What about the one in DC run by Judge Chutkan that’s on indefinite hold thanks to the Supreme Court?

          What about the one in Georgia that is on indefinite hold thanks to the Georgia Supreme Court?

          Those seem pretty hitched to me.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            As far as I’m aware, the supreme Court we’re not indefinite.

            The supreme Court is a piece of s*** don’t get me wrong, but I’m pretty sure that trial is still going on.

            And Trump’s lawyer admitted that “private acts of a sitting president are not entitled to immunity”.

            Yeah, so that’s going well.

            Georgia, that one is currently on hold, but it doesn’t negate all of the other ongoing cases against him and none of the charges are going away.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Uh… If you don’t want your election stolen, you, uh, you gotta vote. Vote so hard they can’t steal it. Make your friends vote. Make your friends’ friends vote.

        Because if we don’t win this year, we don’t get to have any more elections. No more voting. We’re getting rid of it because your don’t vote good.

    • Censored@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Who is being convicted? It sounds like nobody’s been convicted yet, so they’re wiling to try it again. Also who cares if some false elector goes to jail? Not Trump. Not the dirty ratfucker.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well, as a personal conspirator in this game, dumps is certainly liable.

        He’s been indicted in Georgia. And by the doj, so dumps will have to fight those charges of conspiracy.

        This is such a huge case investigated by so many agencies that everyone isn’t even charged yet 4 years later.

        So the convictions will take time, but at least eight people, including chesebro and other planning-level agents, have actively been working with every investigation testify to the involvement of the others.

        The trials and convictions are still ongoing, but a few trials have finished.

        I only know about the ones that have pled guilty and are informing on others. But none of this is halted or not happening, it’s just that the trials and sentencing are still going on.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure. But there are less idiotic and more effective ways to try to seize power.

        Literally forging documents and sending them in two institutions that verify documents is pretty dumb.

        Resulting in legal consequences already.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          You’re still assuming those bodies operate in good faith. Democrats must win the house and senate to ensure that.

          • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Nope, I’m not assuming these bodies operate in good faith.

            I’m taking what happened before into account and the outrage and legal culpability for a large scale, lazy conspiracy, and making a prediction based on that.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      No. Instead they’re gonna have state legislature throw out the results of the election. Which they can probably do, Constitutionally-speaking.

      The State legislature pick the electors. Just because they all use a popular vote to do it doesn’t mean they can’t change the law in between the voting in November and the actual election in December.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ha, I’ve answered that two or three times to other people here!

        I agree that changing or interpreting the law to pick stricty conservative electors is their next strategy, but I don’t think it’s going to be as simple or successful as they imagine.

        Sort of like how they didn’t realize sending in forged documents was very likely to fail.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Forged documents are illegal. Changing laws regarding how electors are selected isn’t.

          Heck - way back in 2000 the Supreme Court hinted at the tactic in the majority opinion in Bush v Gore, saying that the Florida legislature probably could have just selected electors directly after the vote.

  • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    i’m pretty sure that historians will look back on this and agree that a wholesale slaughter of conservatives would have been the best course of action.