Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A new fault line
Simple question: will the question of a “stolen election” by nefarious means – D malfeasance on the local level, top-down fraud efforts, Dominion manipulation, all of the above – divide the conservative side in the year to come? I get the feeling sometimes that if you’re not on board with the idea that Donald Trump actually won, full stop, you’re a cuck-shill Tapper-fluffer (cruise ship icon) RINO eager to buff your cocktail-party credentials.
Published in General
Today I listened to “The Editors” podcast from National Review, featuring Rich Lowry, Michael Brenden Dougherty and Charles C. W. Cooke.
Charles C. W. Cooke mentioned 2 podcasts he listened to in order to educate himself about the election fraud charges being made by the Trump team. One of the names was Andrew McCarthy, who has been very supportive of Trump for these past 4 years and one other person who’s name I can’t quite remember.
But both of them are anti-election fraud hawks, according to Charles C. W. Cooke.
Cooke said that both of them are not impressed at all with the legal case made by Trump’s legal team.
That might not be worth much to you. But it’s something I consider, along with the views of John Yoo, Karl Rove and Benjamin Ginsberg.
and this is why fighting for president is tantamount to life and death and existential elections are the order of the day.
Because congress punts to the executive.
I also think the partisanship has become so intense that few congressmen/senators are willing to slam a president of their own political party when they exceed or misuse executive authority.
No Democrat senator wanted to criticize Obama’s DACA executive order because the “process argument” or “separation of powers argument” would get lost while the question of “Do you support allowing children who came to this country as children to become citizens” would force them to tow the party line, separation of powers be damned.
The same is true on the Republican side, however I think Republicans are more likely to be willing to make process/separation of power arguments, even if they support the underlying policy. The result is that the only real “check” on Presidential power is the judiciary and Lefties on the courts will check a GOP president but not a Democrat one.
I do support a constitutional amendment or a set of constitutional amendment designed to either reduce the power of the presidency or to make it easier for a president to be removed from office by Congress if Congress believes that the President is either incompetent and/or exceeding his authority.
Of course, if it were easier for the Congress to remove a president (perhaps a 52 percent vote in both the US House and the US Senate), Congress could abuse this power and that would be a big problem too. So, there’s that.
The video was referred to in the article:
“Perhaps you saw the video of a network Election Night broadcast made by a person (not identified), also posted on The Gateway Pundit, which showed a sudden switch of votes from Trump to Biden in Pennsylvania the night of Nov. 3. I took two screen shots from that video. Before the switch:”
I went to the Gateway Pundit article but I didn’t see the video listed in the article, but here are screen shots taken from the video shown in the American Thinker article.
Before:
After:
If it wasn’t written down, it didn’t happen. I don’t do podcasts. I read a lot, though. Perhaps the fact that I use my time better than you do is the reason why I’m a Trump supporter and you are an opponent. Listening to people yap about things appeals to the emotional side. I am an avid follower of the MedCram videos, but the way they are presented, with charts and diagrams, accompanied by links to articles, appeals to the side of me that wants to learn stuff.
I went to that article, but as you suggested would happen, I didn’t see anything to take to the bank.
I often use Evernote to save articles that contain actual information that I can use.
Well that might be a way to uncover more of Biden’s dementia, at least.
I enjoy reading too. If I had time to read all of the legal briefs involved in these claims by Trump’s team regarding voter fraud, I would.
I can’t read while I drive. But I can listen to a podcast while I drive. I would love to let a talented attorney like Andrew McCarthy, who has been a strong Trump supporter these past 4 years, explain to me the details of the legal case made by Trump’s attorneys. So, I might listen to Andrew McCarthy’s podcast and I might also read some of the articles he has written about this legal battle.
They actually reversed the order of those two pictures showing the vote count, making it look as if the top picture is what the vote count was first and the bottom picture is what the vote count was second. But it is the reverse. The election officials discovered their own error and took down the erroneous votes placed into Biden’s vote total. So, if you look at the bottom picture, that is what the vote count looked like once they discovered their error and removed the erroneous votes from Biden.
This is why you can’t always rely on web sites. Web sites make money by getting eyeballs. How do you get eyeballs? You make claims that outrage people. This doesn’t mean that nothing on the internet is true. It’s just that not everything is or sometimes context is not provided and the message is misleading, as in this case.
If you want to get his attention, it’s @jameslileks
And as I commented earlier, having Slow Joe get these briefings – which I assume must be given to HIM, not his wife or whoever – might go far in exposing his dementia.
I found the person’s name that Charles C. W. Cooke mentioned on “The Editors” podcast.
Hans von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow and manager of the Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative – which has collected 1,285 proven cases of voter fraud in America.
I will listen to his podcast also.
But is that reason to give Trump the bum’s rush out of office? Certainly not.
Here is Ben Shapiro and Hans von Spakovsky talking about voter fraud and Trump’s legal case.
They mention the North Carolina congressional race where they had to re-do the election because of voter fraud.
Volkswagen Diesel cars were able to detect when they were being tested, and behave differently to pass the test.
Thanks for that link @instugator, that’s what I was trying to paste.
Perhaps not Shapiro himself, but definitely his guest, seem to go along with the notion apparently held by many lawyers and judges that dismissing/cancelling/whatever a group of compromised votes should not be done because it “disenfranchises” the legitimate votes in the group. But that’s not valid. The legitimate voters were already “disenfranchised” by the presence of the fraudulent votes.
If judges especially can’t be shown the error of this mindset, then election integrity may be lost “forever.”
Sorry if my characterization of some Trump supporters offends. As my post made clear, it doesn’t apply to all, nor does it apply to many here. I’ll certainly take credit for suggesting it does to my correspondent in the referenced post. Whether his words suitably serve as being unfairly pilloried may be a matter of controversy, but I’m satisfied my response was appropriate.
Wow @jameslileks I didn’t even see this post until it already had over 200 comments! It “blowed up real good!”
The single biggest issue, as has been mentioned by others probably more in other threads than this (for some reason), might be that the small percentage of NeverTrump types feel entitled to be “in charge of” the much greater side, just because they claim to have been right about Trump all along. I sure don’t see that happening. And those people, who were never more than Useful Idiots to the other side, will have no value to them either: they’ve lived out whatever usefulness they may have had.
And aside from those very few, I don’t think there’s all that much dividing the rest of (hopefully) “us.”
It’s a family affair…
Yup.
The problem isn’t the presidency. It is the congress failing to act.
And that really does come down to us (the voters). We are trading a congress that acts on our behalf for one that accumulates power on our behalf, so we reward congressmen that do nothing in order to not rock the boat so they can get seats in powerful committees. And then we fight over the presidency.
1 Samuel has Israel clamoring for a king to fix the giant mess they made with their judges. Maybe Americans are at that point. Maybe we would rather have a king than a government for the people, by the people.
I’m sure that all the election fraud and corruption in Pennsylvania has been completely eradicated since this announcement from July of this year. Move along.
How does he do that with a straight face.
And kudos to him and his team for investigating the dead people. It was enjoyable learning something about these dead voters.
How do you know this. Apparently the computer nerd guy found numerous discrepancies. Can you provide the link to the info you are giving?
The problem is that we continue to allow Congress to act as a constituent-service mechanism. Nothing will get fixed as long as that is in place. The only response I ever hear from conservatives is to defend this corrupt system. (Some of the same problem exists in parliamentary systems in other countries. It has a similar effect on the quality of the members who run for parliament, but I am less familiar with the other side effects in those systems. I’m not even sure if Yes, Minister ever went into that aspect of it.)
(logs on to see if there are any comments)
(sees 238 comments)
(gently closes laptop cover and pours a drink)
I may have phrased it inexpertly. And I appreciate the assumption of good faith!