Let's talk about the oft repeated phrase "a threat to democracy" we believe trump presents.

[pknopp]

There was a law in Montgomery, AL that black people had to sit in the back of the bus and/or give up their seats for white people. I guess you love that law, right? It's a law, so it's good and just.

You would have told Rosa Parks, "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW"

I didnt say I loved all laws.

Strike three.

 

[Billiejeens]

The overwhelming evidence proves that beyond any doubt.

What I'd like to understand is why it isn't a consideration when weighing the decision of whether to vote for him again.

Nothing that you post is true.

Start there.

 

[Billiejeens]

He got the courts to rule that some are above our laws. That laws do not apply to some in certain situations.

I believe that to be a major blow to Democracy.

It never happened.

There's your problem

There was nothing new in that ruling.
It is dishonest to say otherwise.

 

[Billiejeens]

This post does not mention the Steele Dossier. It has nothing to do with. You're bringing it up because you can't deal with what the thread is actually about.

Do you acknowledge the events I detailed actually happened?

It goes to credibility
You have none.

 

[Billiejeens]

Hey OP, you got a TL;DR version?

It is the same propaganda as every other post that it makes.

 

[pknopp]

It never happened.
In
There's your problem

There was nothing new in that ruling.
It is dishonest to say otherwise.

It matters none if it's nothing new. Even if you wish to argue that, I'll argue this was the courts chance to fix that.

They blew it.

Nowhere does one find in the Constitution where anyone is above the law and the justices pretend this is how they base their rulings.

 

[Robert W]

I didnt say I loved all laws.

Strike three.

Rosa Parks had to obey the Democrats laws, until she refused.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's fake info.

 

[Robert W]

It matters none if it's nothing new. Even if you wish to argue that, I'll argue this was the courts chance to fix that.

They blew it.

Nowhere does one find in the Constitution where anyone is above the law and the justices pretend this is how they base their rulings.

The problem is Democrats did not follow the law and Judge Cannon fixed that.

 

[Billiejeens]

I've been trying to explain that to him but he's not even clear what his argument is.

He hate President Trump.
That's it.

 

[Billiejeens]

The facts I posted represent the threat to democracy that has already occurred.

Never happened.
You have no credibility left.

 

[Billiejeens]

The 14th A clearly provides for a candidate to be removed from the ballot for traitorous acts. The SC incorrectly ruled it can only be done on a state level.

Poor bergy

 

[pknopp]

Rosa Parks had to obey the Democrats laws, until she refused.

That wasn't a law.

 

[Billiejeens]

No. Please read Jack Smith's indictment.

Damn you stupid

 

[IM2]

You lost me at "Project 2025".


Poor Stalinberg80. Another day, another stage four TDS thread of GASLIGHT and PROJECTION without an OUNCE of self-awareness to recognize the absurdity.

You choose to be lost.

 

[Billiejeens]

It matters none if it's nothing new. Even if you wish to argue that, I'll argue this was the courts chance to fix that.

They blew it.

Nowhere does one find in the Constitution where anyone is above the law and the justices pretend this is how they base their rulings.

It's against the law to kill people.
Law enforcement killed someone last Saturday - what charges are you looking for?

 

[BluesLegend]

I wish I could say it's been a pleasure conversing with you. It hasn't. You're on ignore.

 

[otto105]

We spend so much time talking past each other I thought it might be useful to be more exacting in reference to what is meant by that phrase. It is most frequently used in the context of what another trump presidency may bring. Based in part on certain remarks he's made about retribution against his perceived enemies. And on the disavowed document, Project 2025, laying out a blueprint for what another term portends.

The thing is, we don't have to speculate about whether a threat will materialize..........it already has. I should say at this point I'm reluctant to illustrate what I mean because I know what kind of reaction it will elicit. But the point of the post is to be specific, not vague, so here goes.

On 4 January, the conservative lawyer John Eastman was summoned to the Oval Office to meet Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence. Within 48 hours, Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election would formally be certified by Congress, sealing Trump’s fate and removing him from the White House.
Tucker Carlson condemned over ‘false flag’ claim about deadly Capitol attack
The atmosphere in the room was tense. The then US president was “fired up” to make what amounted to a last-ditch effort to overturn the election results and snatch a second term in office in the most powerful job on Earth.

Eastman, who had a decades-long reputation as a prominent conservative law professor, had already prepared a two-page memo in which he had outlined an incendiary scenario under which Pence, presiding over the joint session of Congress that was to be convened on 6 January, effectively overrides the votes of millions of Americans in seven states that Biden had won, then “gavels President Trump as re-elected”.

The Eastman memo, first revealed by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa in their book Peril, goes on to predict “howls” of protest from Democrats. The theory was that Pence, acting as the “ultimate arbiter” of the process, would then send the matter to the House of Representatives which, following an arcane rule that says that where no candidate has reached the necessary majority each state will have one vote, also decides to turn the world upside down and hand the election to the losing candidate, Donald Trump.

‘A roadmap for a coup’: inside Trump’s plot to steal the presidency

A startling memo, a surreal Oval Office encounter – just some of the twists in the unfolding story of Trump’s bid to cling to power, which critics say was no less than an attempted coup

www.theguardian.com

Here's a link to the Eastman memo. https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf

I'm hoping not to get bogged down by folks who will not accept this meeting actually did take place. If you can't accept that it did this would be a good jumping off point for you.

Moving on, we come to the matter of Jeffrey Clark. You may or may not recall trump wanted to name him acting AG in order to use the influence of the DoJ to pursue baseless claims of massive voter fraud, specifically in GA. When some of the top DoJ officials heard of trump's desire they threatened to quit en masse if he promoted Clark.

Read the Unsent Letter by Jeffrey Clark to Georgia Officials​

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with President Donald J. Trump and his allies to undo the election, wanted to send a letter to state officials in Georgia that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would affect the state’s election results.

Read the Unsent Letter by Jeffrey Clark to Georgia Officials (Published 2022)

Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department official who worked closely with President Donald J. Trump and his allies to undo the election, wanted to send a letter to state officials in Georgia that falsely claimed that the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns” that would...

www.nytimes.com

Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump​

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting

Finally, we come to trump's participation in the fake elector scheme.

Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Election​

Comprehensive Timeline on False Electors Scheme in 2020 Presidential Election

The most comprehensive factual record of former President Donald Trump and his close associates coordination of the false electors scheme.

www.justsecurity.org

Overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence proves beyond any doubt these things I've outlined happened. All of which with one goal in mind. To create a scenario leading to trump remaining in power.

I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself when I say this is what is meant when I contend trump is a threat to democracy. He has already threatened it. There is every reason to believe he will threaten it again. Especially after the recent rulings of his SCOTUS.

Ultimately, I'm asking trump supporters to examine the record I've laid out. The demonstrable evidence shows trump and his cohorts tried to change the outcome of a presidential election. I can think of few greater threats to democracy than that. They say past is prologue, hence my (our) concern.

You mean the one you count on.

 

[Billiejeens]

It's a long list.

Berg has no idea how to debate ideas.

He says - here are my lunatic talking point.
Accept them as fact.

Very, very few do.

 

[berg80]

You've posted nothing but innuendo.

A few of the officials who threatened to resign testified under oath about the incident.