Trump supporters and conspiracy theory - Part 2

[Andrew Mason]

Nothing here I disagree with.

It looks to me that Canada is very similar to Great Britain. The Prime Minister is not directly elected but is determined by the party, or coalition of parties, who have over 50%. This seems like a good system.

I like the British and Canadian system a lot because you can form a small party and have a chance of being part of the main government. In America, you have to be either in the Democratic or the Republican party. It sort of works, because parties do change over time, but the British system sounds more natural.

Question:

In Canada, what happens if no party by itself has 50%, and the parties refuse to make an agreement with the others to form a coalition? I get the impression that in Great Britain, the Queen would put moral pressure on them to come to an agreement. What would happen in Canada?

Canada has a tradition of minority federal governments that last so long as the other parties are willing to support the government on budgets and non-confidence motions.  If a government loses either, it will fall and an election will be called. A minority government is not a coalition, that is two parties working together to form a government. In a minority government, the government is formed from the party with the most seats and has to work with other parties to get budgets and legislation passed.   Some of our best legislation - including universal health care - came from periods of minority governments.

Canada does not have as strong a tradition of coalition governments, although there was a recent one in the province of British Columbia between the New Democratic Party and the Green Party.  After the May 2017 election in BC, the NDP had fewer seats (41) than the Liberals (43) and the Green Party had 3 seats.  The Greens said they would support the NDP but not the Liberals so they formed a coalition government.  The NDP/Green coalition government lasted for over 3 years.  The NDP was re-elected with a majority (57 seats) in October 2020. The NDP and Green are on the left of centre side of politics.  The Liberals are usually centre left but in BC are more centre-right.

The United States was the earliest true democracy

... if one can call your Electoral College "true" democracy.

..., though it took a while for voting rights to be pretty universal, at least for white males. But even that took a while. But we formed a rigid Constitution, to insure basic rights. It may be that the British and Canadian system to trust the parliament, allowing more liberal policies to more easily come into place, may be the superior system. America was tardy in giving blacks the vote, giving woman the votes, etc.

There are benefits to both systems.  But the Parliamentary system arguably allows for more immediate accountability.  The PM and ministers are required to answer questions from the opposition during the parliamentary Question Period, which is held each day that the House of Commons sits and is broadcast nationally.  In your system, the legislators rarely if ever get to put questions to the President or the cabinet.  When they try, the White House invokes executive privilege and they refuse to co-operate.

The Second Amendment. The Constriction could not be clearer.

.... you are kidding, right?  If it was so clear, why is there so much disagreement, including in the US Supreme Court (5:4), over what it means?

The government shall not interfere with the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms. Not the right of an isolated individual. Not the right on an isolated individual and his buddy, or a hundred buddies, who declare themselves to be a well-regulated militia.

Although I agree with you that this is what was likely intended or at least hoped, the wording makes a right of "the people", not a right of a government or militia or the right of a state to be secure:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

Maybe it was thought that in order to keep a state secure and free of despots, leaders should be afraid of the people.  The idea that armed people would always be well-regulated and do what is right and act in the interest of the public as a whole seems a bit naïve.

To me, this means a militia under the control of the Governor, hopefully with a few days a year of getting together and training and making it clear the chain of command, which leads to the governor. A well-regulated militia, not a mob that runs off and does whatever it wants to do with guns, regardless of what the majority wants.So, what the hell happened here. Well, as I understand it, up until the 1950’s, the Second Amendment was not used to protect the right of private individuals to fire arms. Then, some activist judge decided that is the way it should be interpreted. And other judges went along. And now, somehow, this has been established by precedence. In my mind 70 years of precedence should not overrule the original framer’s intent, particularly when the original framers got it right on this issue, as they didn’t always get right on others.

I agree and I wish that was the case for you and your fellow citizens and for Canadians who have to deal with the illicit flow of handguns into our cities from the US (handguns are very restricted in Canada). But you are going to need a new second amendment to get around the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).  With that 5:4 ruling, the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense.  The majority held that a legislated handgun ban and requirement that rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and either disabled or locked was unconstitutional.  

[Joe Elliott]

Although I agree with you that this is what was likely intended or at least hoped, the wording makes a right of "the people", not a right of a government or militia or the right of a state to be secure:  "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 

To me the meaning could not be clearer. The people do have the right to keep and bear arms, so long as they are a member of a well-regulated militia.

It the intent was to allow anyone to keep and bear arms, then there would be no mention of a well-regulated militia. It just would have said that individuals could keep and bear arms for any reason they deemed sufficient. For being a member of a well-regulated militia, to go hunting, to go seize a government official elected by the people, or for whatever purpose that individual deems to be good.

 It appears to me there are some expressed conditions in the Constitution for the right to bear arms. One must be a member of a well-regulated militia. If I want to keep and bear arms, I have to meet the conditions. And a well-regulated militia I interpret as being under the control of elected officials, like the governor. Being a member of the Proud Boys is not sufficient.

.... you are kidding, right?  If it was so clear, why is there so much disagreement, including in the US Supreme Court (5:4), over what it means?

I cannot help it if the courts, including the U. S. Supreme Court, since the 1950’s, have taken an activist course in changing the meaning of this portion of the Constitution.

[Joe Elliott]

Headline: Rudy Giuliani says that any Republican against overturning Election should leave the party.

I’m way ahead of you mayor.

[Joe Elliott]

Cleta Mitchell who is a lawyer who was participating in the Saturday phone call with Trump to the Secretary of State of Georgia. She has just resigned from the law firm she was a member of, Foley & Lardner. The law firm said that they “concluded that her departure was in the firm’s best interests, as well as in her own personal best interests". Cleta Mitchell blamed a "massive pressure campaign in the last several days mounted by leftist groups via social media" for her resignation and that this had nothing to do with her participating in a phone call with her client while he used pressure and threats of criminal prosecution to influence a government official to declare him the winner of an election, which was against Georgia law.

Actually, and Andrew Mason can correct me if I’m wrong, but if you’re a lawyer who is on a conference call, and your client makes a threat that is a felony, and you sit by and say nothing. You don’t interrupt to “interpret” what you client really means. And it turns out that call was recorded. Yes, I think you can get fired for that. I’m not certain it requires some left-wing conspiracy to pull that off.

[Joe Elliott]

Well, it looks both Senate seats are going to the Democrats. So much for the power of Trump.

Why do I say that?

Consider this:

•   Georgia is a long-time red state.
•   In Georgia, if a candidate does not get over 50% of the vote, there has to be a runoff. That is why there was a runoff this year.
•   Never before, at least in the last 50 years, have a Republican candidate for the Senate lost a runoff. Even if they had fewer votes in the November election. Because Democrats often don’t show up in these special elections.
•   In November, both the Republican voters had the most votes, but not enough to reach 50%.
•   One of the Republican candidates, Perdue, was going for re-election, which should give him an edge.
•   The last time both Senate seats in a state flipped parties was in 1994 when Tennessee flipped from two Democrats to two Republicans.

Both Republican candidates came out on top. What the hell happened?

Trump happened. Trump’s support is no longer a magical elixir. While most Republican voters accept this “Stolen Election” narrative. I mean, why wouldn’t they? Millions sent their money to this billionaire to win a lost election, most of which he pocketed. So why wouldn’t they buy the “Stolen Election” story. The more he lies to them, the more he steals their money, the more they love him. He should try to sell them a bridge.

But that isn’t true of all Trump voters. Some were turned off by these weak claims. They might decide to send a message, to skip this election, or even to vote for the Democrats just this one time. To have some influence on Congress tomorrow.

And Trump’s continued focus on the Stolen Election. Is this something that is going to go away? Of is this something he is still going to be obsessed with a month from now, six months from now, 18 months from now when he is campaigning for candidates and supposed to stay on subject but keeps harking back to that stolen election of 2020. Is he really going to be much of an asset for a Republican candidate after the primaries? It doesn’t look like it.

In any case, something to think about for the Republican Senators and Congressmen before tomorrow’s Electoral College counting. If you’re going to sell your soul, make sure it’s for something worthwhile and not something that has greatly depreciated. Make certain that golden fiddle is not electroplated. “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” or should I say “The Devil Went Down in Georgia”. Yes sir, he sure did. And tomorrow he’s going down in Washington D. C.

[Joe Elliott]

Here is a pretty likely scenario for the next few years:

In the spring and summer, moderate Republicans, primaried out.

In November, Trump Republicans - Loser.

The Election in Georgia shows the future. Two candidates who can breeze through any Republican primary. And lose in November partly because a minority of Republicans think that they are traitors.

You guys think you got it bad now? Lost the Presidency and both houses. It can’t get any worse than that, can it? What do you think is going to happen a year and a half from now when Trump gets busy knocking out incumbents in the primary who had the best chance of winning in November? You think that’s going to get you control of the Senate back from the Democrats?

Eventually, the base of the Republican party will wise up. And go for candidates who can win in November. But in the meantime, the party is going to take a beating.

If this Georgia Senate race is not a wakeup call for any Republican’s out there, I don’t know what to say. Both elections lost. In Georgia! By candidates who got the most votes two months ago! But, hey, what do I care. I’m out of the party. You guys go knock yourself out. And don’t forget to send Trump some more money from time to time. And be sure to vote the way he tells you to. He won’t be leading you wrong.

[Rick Plant]

How are things working out in the liberal utopias of California and NY?  Places that have been run by libs for decades.   Are people moving there or fleeing in droves?  What conclusion can be drawn from this?  Do people like high taxes, illegals pouring into their state, homeless hoards taking over the cities, riots and anarchy?  No?  Have no fear.  China Joe has no principles.  He is an establishment, do nothing politician who will only do what he is told by his paymasters.  Mostly on Wall St. and in China.  But when the radicals invoke the 25th Amendment, all bets are off.  Kantala, who received not one vote even in the primaries, will be calling the shots soon.

More conspiracy and garbage from Richard. Maga was soundly defeated again. Enjoy these next 4 years!

[Rick Plant]

Do any of the Trump supporters have anything to say about Trump’s phone call to the Georgia Secretary of State? Defensible? Indefensible?

Would it be a good thing, if Cuba had free elections, for Castro to call one of his officials in one of 16 administrative divisions and say “Hey, in this last election, I need 11,000 more votes in your district. Just give me 11,000 more votes.” Would should we think if such a phone call took place? Should this be considered an example of Democracy in action. Afterall, Castro was the President of Cuba.

What do you think Trump’s phone call looks like to the rest of the world? In Britain. In Canada. In Australia. Perfectly defensible?

His supporters knows he's a criminal but they don't care.

They also know he lost the election but they want him to stay in power through an illegal coup. 

The rest of the world knows he's an Anti American scumbag as well as the majority of the United States.