Do you think Americans should be looking at recall elections?

[goaded]

If your senator confirms a child molester and subpoena ignorer for the highest law enforcer in the land, or a disgraced major to run the military, or a drug dealer and anti-vaxxer to run the health department...

[NaultD]

There is a process to that for house and senate seats. Basically, this person is out of touch with reality and recalls them. You could recall Basically anyone even supreme court judges, but that's assuming we don't have any democratic abolitionists actively wanting to destroy the constitution.

[msc545]

Yes of course but it won't happen.

[MisterWack]

Okay so, this is a debate that I don’t want to dive deep into… Though I do believe that the American people are regretting their decision, now the question is: is it enough to change the outcome? Me: No.

Look, Donald Trump won the popular vote & the electoral college and his supporters who were duped knew what was at stake and the policies. Therefore, you can blame them though remember to vote in 2026 & 2028. Don’t throw your hands in the air like you just don’t care about the state of our Constitutional Republic with Democratic Values (Democratic Republic). Analyze, compare & contrast, watch both politicians closely, and pick the best for the millions of Americans not just yourself…. It will be a bumpy road though it is too late, no recall election.

[MisterWack]

I do want to say North Carolina had 3,000,000 votes for their Democratic Governor though not 3,000,000 to Harris which would’ve won them the state. In other states if all third party candidate votes went to Harris she’d be close enough to win probably at least 1. Those local state govts are in charge of their own elections and can do whatever the Hell they want without interference from Federal Govt (just like 2020) however I believe Americans allowed this choice to happen and they have to deal with the consequences. Tough luck.

I hate Trump and the election didn’t come out the way I anticipated it though nothing we can do. Keep him in check 2026 / vote out MAGA 2028.

[goaded]

Fair point. She lost; that's not in dispute (but the popular vote difference is down to about 1.7%).

[MisterWack]

The issue is I don't know how much a recall election should start with…. 1.7% and a 2,660,863 Vote difference I’m just not educated on the subject to really point to a decision.
I’m thinking on the principles of Democracy.
Yes this election wasn’t the result I wanted though 10 million people chose to sit home and watch the system do its thing…. That is on them, not me because I voted Harris 2024.

[goaded]

Good for you.

[exitseven]

We have a governor who is inviting illegal aliens to come to the stste and live off the taxpayers. She was elected 2 years ago and within a year she had to declare a state of emergency for an emergency tht she caused. The state currently has a billion dollar budget deficit that the legislature has to figure out how it will be solved. Coincidently a billion dollars is what the governor spent on illegal aliens last year. She vows not the let the state police assist ICE in getting rid of them,. Tom Homan called her an idiot. I csnnot wait until next year. It should be good for a laugh. She needs to be recslled.

[Gwendoline]

Would be undemocratic to weaponise the legal system to overturn an election and lock up political candidates who's policies you don't like because you are unhappy your candidate lost.

[goaded]

Do you know what a recall election is?

[JesterRose]

America was founded by criminals. We overthrew British rule here over a 2 cent tax increase on tea. You think anyone who knows their history is bothered by the “criminals” getting elected?

[noohair]

I do not concern myself with German politics. It is an internal matter. You Europeans are so good at being pseudo-intellectual but you can't manage your own business in Europe. Criticism from Germany is just a dog fart over here.

[Juxtapose]

You're lying. The attorney general is not a child molester, I see no such conviction. You're just spreading libel.

[goaded]

Then he can sue me, and I can use discovery to see what's in the report he resigned to avoid. I think there's evidence that he used Venmo to pay for teenagers to cross state lines and have sex with him.

[Juxtapose]

He resigned because he has to do so to take his position. If he was scared of that shit he would have resigned sooner.

[goaded]

No, he doesn't. Nobody has to resign until they're confirmed. Marco Rubio hasn't resigned. Elise Stefanik hasn't resigned. Gaetz resigned two days before a "damning" report on him was due to be released by the House Ethics Committee, removing himself from their jurisdiction.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, he does. He doesn't have to resign right now but why delay the inevitable especially when a corrupt court system is coming after you? The supposed witness or accuser is not even being named and I bet you anything they don't have a rape kit.

Hearsay is worthless. Either provide a rape kit, video evidence or something else or get the fuck out.

[goaded]

It's not "a corrupt court system", it's the House Ethics Committee. Nobody is forced to resign until they're confirmed (and it sounds unlikely that he will be, especially as senators are demanding the report).

There you go again with the misleading "rape kit" thing. Give it a rest. Someone testifying under oath that they witnessed the crime is evidence, and you know it. Releasing their name would probably get them killed in these days of political violence from the right.

[Juxtapose]

Hearsay is not evidence. I want actual physical evidence such as a rape kit, pictures or film.

And stop with your hysterics about political violence from the right when which side was the one that tried to kill the president twice? Oh yeah, the side that donated to ActBlue and appeared in Black Rock commercials.

[goaded]

The evidence is the witness statement. How many people do you think rape or murder with a camera present? You're just asking for the impossible because you know he's probably guilty (there were the illegal drugs, as well as the paid-for sex with an under aged girl).

[Juxtapose]

No, I think eye witness testimony alone is not good enough to put somebody away and take away their freedom. That's actually fucking ridiculous.

[Juxtapose]

So like I said, you have nothing but hearsay. I could sign an affidavit of fact saying you raped somebody but does that make it true? Use your fucking head and ask for proof and don't be a dumbass.

[goaded]

"I think eye witness testimony alone is not good enough to put somebody away and take away their freedom." FFS, really? That's also not what "hearsay" means, look it up.

[Juxtapose]

If they cannot adequately substantiate what they are saying then yeah, I would say that's hearsay.

[Juxtapose]

And yeah, if you're going to take away my fucking freedom you better have some

[Juxtapose]

rock solid evidence. I'm not going to play the he said she said game.

[goaded]

" If they cannot adequately substantiate what they are saying then yeah, I would say that's hearsay. " You and nobody else. Eyewitness testimony is evidence, and it's substantiated by the victim, too, remember? (Not to mention a conspirator of his.)

Anyway, you've got your wish; the DoJ decided not to prosecute on that basis, so his "fucking freedom" is safe.

You're just using that to avoid the fact that he probably did do what he was accused of and that you don't want that to stop him becoming the top law enforcement officer for the United States of America. Which it certainly should.

So should his lack of morals and judgement in showing pictures of naked women around on the House floor.

By the way, the only lie in this conversation is your assertion that Gaetz (he's not AG yet) definitely "is not a child molester". You have no way of knowing that.

[Juxtapose]

Oh so I could find somebody to accuse you of something, claim I am a witness, we both sign affidavits of facts and all of a sudden that is good enough to get you locked up? Wow, that's surely not going to be abused to hell and back 🤣

I better get my wish, the Republicans have a public mandate to take out lawfare.

No, I am happy the fake bullshit was dropped. Because until they show hard evidence, I am not convinced.

I don't really care that he showed naked women.

In America you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is how it should be. The court of public opinion can suck my fucking nuts.

[goaded]

You're doing it again, aren't you? Trying to make this about whether Gaetz can be found guilty in a court of law rather than his probable guilt and certain lack of morals and judgement that should exclude him from any law enforcement position, let alone the top one in the country.

I bet you couldn't "find somebody to accuse [me] of something", and if you did you'd better be 100% sure of where I was at the time you're accusing me of committing a crime, or you'll both be going to prison for perjury.

There is no lawfare at the moment, because weirdo Trump's not president. Oh, and there's no "mandate". More people voted against Trump than for him, and the popular vote difference between him and Harris was only about 1.7%.

Remember, he seriously tried to get Clinton prosecuted: "in 2018, Trump told the White House counsel that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton. As former special counsel Robert Mueller documented in his findings, it was around this time that Trump pressured then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to go after Clinton."

[Juxtapose]

I don't care about your subjective opinion on him because it is entirely partisan.

So all I would need is one willing person who wants to fuck you over and knowing where you were at a particular time? Yeah, totally not abusable at all xD What a JOKE.

Trump literally received more votes than any other Republican in history and the Republicans control all branches of the government right now. That's one hell of a mandate!

He really should have, but he took the high road and avoided doing so. That bitch committed legitimate crimes and should have been investigated.

[goaded]

No, it's not, it's completely objective. Ethics should matter in choosing the head of the DoJ. You don't like it because you're completely partisan.

Again, more people voted against Trump than for him.

Did you call Obama's win in 2008 a mandate? He had a 365-173 win in the EC, had over 7 points over McCain in the popular vote and increased the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate.

Did you call Biden's win in 2020 a mandate? He got congress, as well.

But when you say "Republicans control all branches of the government right now", you probably mean SCOTUS as well, am I right?

[Juxtapose]

Again, in America people are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your woke court of public opinion (which isn't even shared by most people) can go suck a big, fat, veiny dick.

Yeah no, I'm not letting you diminish this accomplishment. Trump has literally received more votes than any Republican in history. Name me a single Republican who received more votes than all of their opposition combined.

Yes, absolutely Obama had a public mandate. He won legitimately and he was extremely popular and even I was contemplating voting for him because he's a constitutional law professor and was saying all the right things. His actions unfortunately spoke differently.

2020 was rigged. There is no fucking way Biden got more of the black vote than Obama. It's more rigged than when Al Gore was cheated by George Walker Bush.

Well of course man, you do know what the three branches of the US government are, right? Judicial, executive and legislative. Republicans have all three right now.

[goaded]

Again, that's not actually true. Guilty people get off by not being taken to court, or the courts acquitting them. There's a reason people can be found not guilty in court but lose lawsuits for the very same actions. And we're not even talking about taking money from Gaetz, just not confirming him as the premiere law enforcement officer of the US.

Trump didn't receive "more votes than all of their opposition combined". His popular vote total is under 50%. It's not a mandate, it's not even as good as Biden's win in that respect and a hell of a lot less than Obama's.

Yes, you think SCOTUS should be partisan, don't you. It shouldn't be, it's supposed to be impartial and apolitical. The fact that it isn't is entirely down to Republicans. It's corruption, pure and simple.

[Juxtapose]

No you are wrong, very, incredibly, foundationally wrong. Presumed innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law is the cornerstone of American justice.

Jesus fucking Christ I didn't say he did. You implied he should have if it was a mandate and then I challenged you to name a single Republican who has done that. If any Republican did do that, you would probably have to go back over a hundred years. Trump has a mandate and has made an incredible comeback despite this incredible, coordinated attack against him by the establishment.

Oh spare me your bullshit. As if judges appointed by Obama would not also be partisan. Everybody has bias and conservative worldviews are incredibly different from far left, social liberal worldviews.

The most accurate reading of the Constitution is from a classical liberal perspective.

[goaded]

Presumption of innocence applies to trials and courts, the police couldn't function if they had to presume everyone was innocent! I can make up my own mind, and I'm sure he paid for sex with a 17 year old girl, and definitely not suitable to be head of the DoJ. I also believe that OJ murdered his wife, that Trump tried to steal the presidency and stole lots of government documents, showed them to people who had no right to see them, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he sold some.

You said: "Trump has literally received more votes than any Republican in history. Name me a single Republican who received more votes than all of their opposition combined."

My apologies, the juxtaposition of those two sentences led to me think you were saying adjudicated rapist Trump won 50% of the popular vote (he didn't). To answer your question: EVERY SINGLE Republican president in the last HUNDRED YEARS won more than 50% of the popular vote at least once EXCEPT felon Trump.

GW Bush won 50.7% in 2004 (because of 9/11), HW Bush won 53.4% in 1988, Ronald Reagan won 54.5% in 1984 and 50.4% in 1980, Nixon won 60.7% in 1972, Dwight D. Eisenhower won 57.4% in 1956, 55.2% in 1952, Herbert Hoover won 58.1% in 1928, and Calvin Coolidge won 54.0% in 1924.

Justices nominated to the Supreme Court by any other president had to get over potential filibusters in the Senate. Only McConnell removed that requirement in order to ram through three nominees on an entirely partisan basis (and the WH obstructed the FBI investigating Kavanaugh).

[Juxtapose]

Well in my personal opinion it is a good thing you are not in charge of making these choices. You can draw all the conclusions you want but that really doesn't matter to me.

I was not asking you about percentages and judging by your answer, you cannot name a single Republican candidate who had more votes than all of their opposition combined. That was the parameter you set for being a landslide victory, and so far no Republican in history has met your standard. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Yeah I don't believe you. Democrats have been just as partisan as republicans.

[goaded]

Oh, so now you're simply going to lie about what we both said.

Do you understand what winning more that 50% of the vote means? It literally means winning more votes than all their opposition combined. Every single Republican president for a century has done that at least once, except career criminal Trump.

Not all of those were landslide victories, either. Certainly, Trump has not had one. 1.7% more votes than your opponent is not a mandate.

"Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong." That's literally what I just did.

[Juxtapose]

Oh I see what you mean, that was my mistake then.

Trump is the first president in 20 years to even win the popular vote and all three branches of government has shifted to his side. That's a pretty clear public mandate however you want to slice it.

[goaded]

"Trump is the first president in 20 years to even win the popular vote...". No, he's not. Biden and Obama both did.

[Juxtapose]

Republican president, my bad.

[goaded]

GW Bush is the only other Republican president in the last 20 years, and he won 50.7% in 2004. Trump never got to 50%, more people voted against him than for him all three times.

[Juxtapose]

I don't think the states that refuse to use voter ID should be even counted to be frank. The Democrats are openly cheating and if you doubt me I can show you what they are up to.

[goaded]

No you can't because it's all lies. Trump and his people have been trying the same shit for over 8 years now. http://stopthesteal.org was registered by Roger Stone before the 2016 election; they were planning it back then, too. Then, when Trump unexpectedly won, there was suddenly no question of irregulatities. Funny, that.

by the way, when are you planning to acknowledge that every Republican president for the last century has won more that 50% of the vote, except Trump?

[Juxtapose]

Yeah let's see you say that if all 50 states require voter ID and have stricter deadlines for finishing counting.

[Juxtapose]

Psst.. people against voter ID don't actually think black people are that stupid. They are trying to cheat.

[goaded]

Are you drunk? When are you planning to acknowledge that every Republican president for the last century has won more that 50% of the vote, except Trump?

[Juxtapose]

Maybe I'll acknowledge that when the votes are redone with voter ID implemented properly and a proper deadline is set for counting votes.

Literally the only states Harris won were states were voter ID is not required. That should tell you something.

She could have potentially won only a small handful of states and lost even harder.

[Juxtapose]

Voter ID should absolutely federally mandated.

[Juxtapose]

So yeah, I'll say that 2024 was still rigged against Trump but he won so hard it was too big to rig so to say.

[Juxtapose]

You can only put your thumb on the scale so much and the deep state knows this. Oh and also here is proof of the Democrats cheating in another way:

www.yahoo.com/.../...admit-counting-130613207.html

[goaded]

Yeah, so you only accept elections you win, that's obvious. Why can't you admit that EVERY SINGLE Republican president in the last HUNDRED YEARS won more than 50% of the popular vote at least once EXCEPT felon Trump.

GW Bush won 50.7% in 2004 (because of 9/11), HW Bush won 53.4% in 1988, Ronald Reagan won 54.5% in 1984 and 50.4% in 1980, Nixon won 60.7% in 1972, Dwight D. Eisenhower won 57.4% in 1956, 55.2% in 1952, Herbert Hoover won 58.1% in 1928, and Calvin Coolidge won 54.0% in 1924.

[Juxtapose]

Geez people like you are so incorrigible and don't get the point. Let's see how well your side does when voter ID is required in all 50 states and is properly supervised.

[goaded]

So, no election in the history of the country has been valid, according to your insane opinion?

[Juxtapose]

If all 50 states don't require voter ID laws, yeah, I think those states that don't have voter ID laws are illegitimate.

[goaded]

So, yes, you are insane, thinking no election in the history of the USA is legitimate.

[goaded]

Funny how you didn't care about 2016, or 2024.

[Juxtapose]

Bro I literally just mentioned both of those elections recently, what are you smoking?

[Juxtapose]

Oh well I mentioned 2024, I thought you meant 2020 for the other one.

But yeah, no election is legit without voter I. D. That's just common sense.

[goaded]

Except every election for the last couple of centuries were without universal voter ID.

[Juxtapose]

As technology progresses so does people's ability to cheat. Universal voter ID is crucial in ensuring fair elections.

[goaded]

Not really. That's mostly the Trump/Stone con. There are many checks on voting eligibility, not least of which is the fact that if people were voting for other people by the thousands, there would be hundreds of complaints of people supposedly voting twice.

Every time anyone checks for this, they find that the discrepancy is tiny. Like one in a million tiny. www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/04/dead-people-voting/

People like you like to pretend that someone who's still on a voting roll after they die will definitely have a ballot cast in their name. That's bullshit, and easily checked after the event.

[Juxtapose]

Bruh..

www.yahoo.com/.../...admit-counting-130613207.html

[goaded]

Firstly, that has nothing to do with voter fraud.

Secondly, and typically, the Republican who's suing was on the other side of the issue two years ago, when he needed more votes he sued to ensure undated ballots should be counted. (The ballots envelopes are automatically dated, just the voter didn't write the date on the envelope.)

"McCormick took the opposite stance in 2022 in his failed bid to close a roughly 900-vote gap with Dr. Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania's Republican primary for U. S. Senate. At the time, McCormick's lawyer told a state judge that the object of Pennsylvania's election law is to let people vote, "not to play games of 'gotcha' with them.""

""Every voter's ballot is sacred," Montgomery County Commissioner Neil Makhija, a Democrat, said on X, formerly Twitter. "When we know when a ballot is sent and received through barcodes [on] our envelopes, the dating requirement is immaterial. We can't throw out constitutional rights over technicalities.""

The issue is still before the courts, and, unlike Trump's cases, it's not a frivolous question. When there's a final ruling, the election will be over. As long as they keep the tallies separate, there's no problem.

www.newsweek.com/pennsylvania-counting-illegal-ballots-what-we-know-1986451