Lester Holt and Liz Cheney in conversation at Aspen Ideas Festival
By: NBC News
NBC's Lester Holt leads a conversation with former Rep. Liz Cheney R-Wy., on the 2024 election and former President Trump's indictment, where she says Trump is "unfit to be the president of the United States."
Cheney offering serious, wise, rational advice regarding the future of the GOP and our nation.
Contrast this with the irrational 'arguments' emanating from the GOP today.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Tags
Who is online
401 visitors
A serious, rational conservative. A reminder of what the GOP used to be.
Rejected by the current GOP.
Depending on what the definition is of the current GOP.
The GOP moved away from its long-standing principles. It is currently, predominantly, the party of Trump. Those who will vote for Trump are willing followers of Trump. How embarrassing is that?
It's embarrassing, but it's worse. It shows they're willing to put loyalty to Trump ahead of loyalty to their country, and even ahead of common decency.
The current MAGA carnation of the gop is anti government, anti federal law enforcement, anti establishment. They did not even produce or pass a party platform in 2020 because they absolutely do not stand for the responsible government policies the republicans used to represent. Why is a Trump, now indicted of ninety one felonies including conspiring to defraud the American people, the obstruction of American justice and seditious conspiracy, allowed run for President?
Because our laws don’t make his running illegal.
I would have never predicted anything like this. How quickly a party can degenerate; and most of the GOP members apparently do not grasp the severity of the situation.
One would think that rational, responsible, patriotic voters would not vote for Trump given what he has done. We should not need laws to prevent someone like Trump securing the nomination (worse, the presidency). Our CotUS trusted the electorate to do that. Worked rather well for about 228 years.
Considering how unexpected events can change things almost overnight, DeSantis still has a good chance to win the nomination. I'm sure all the hate and venom and misinformation directed at Trump will be transferred to him.
If Biden keeps circling the drain and has to literally dragged off the stage, either Trump or Biden will DeSantis will beat him
I would much prefer Nikki Haley with Chris Sununu as V.P. That is a ticket I would vote FOR.
another comment of near gibberish...
Why should it be just the GOP?
The context is the GOP, thus the discussion regards the GOP.
Do you see a major change in the GOP just comparing its operation under 43 vs. Trump? And as we turn back time we see the disparity grow more severe.
Hello, TiG.
Have you ever seen a Trump rally? There are so many flags: flag hats, flag shirts, flag whatever ...Trump supporters see themselves as the "rational, responsible, patriotic voters" so much so that some people now see flying the American flag as a symbol of Trump supporters. This is from people who are against Trump. So when you call the people who support Trump irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic, the rest of your argumentation, no matter how logically and rhetorically sound, is lost on the very people whose minds you would endeavor to change. That is if you have not just written them off and are "rallying the forces," so to speak.
We, Americans, need to be looking beyond the next election and thinking about how we talk to each other, and about the direction that we want to go as a country. Because the language we use and the arguments we raise will affect the way we are seen by everyone and the traction that will be gained by our ideas.
We, Americans, need to be looking beyond the next election and thinking about how we talk to each other, and about the direction that we want to go as a country. Because the language we use and the arguments we raise will affect the way we are seen by everyone and the traction that will be gained by our ideas.
This argument has been made countless times, but no amount of following through on it will have an impact on the Trump base, period. There is no reasoning with the hopelessly unreasonable. We are headed to a dark place, plain and simple. Rational leaders world wide see Trump for the reckless embarrassment that he is, and having the majority of his party in lockstep with him is frightening to everyone.
I understand. But after Trump Voters are gone, we will still be here and the ideas that make us who we are will be here also. At least hopefully.
... ahead of democracy.
front of the line for the republicans left that have courage, ethics, and a sense of honor...
She's a fuckin' RINO and a disgrace to the GOP
It is such a shame observing how the GOP has transformed into an irrational mess. And people apparently think that the current state of the GOP is what it should be. Do you really think that Ronald Reagan would recognize the GOP today? I think he would be utterly appalled and would be very much aligned with Cheney.
Cheney is a remnant from the old GOP. She reminds people what the GOP used to be and how it should be.
I think it is more accurate to state that those who support Trump are RINOs.
Trump has never been a conservative or even a true Republican. He is more aligned with the Democrats. Liz is just a pale imitation of her asshole, warmongering father. Real Republicans support anyone other than Trump.
you'll still mark those R boxes on your vote by mail ballot, no matter who they are ...
I agree that Trump is just pretending to be a conservative Republican. He is also pretending to be religious. Glad to see that you recognize that.
Looks like the "real Republicans" are a minority in the GOP. Trump appears to be a shoe-in for the nomination.
Are you a "real Republican" if you vote for Trump to be PotUS?
... pretending to be a billionaire, a patriot, a law abiding citizen, an american...
Incredible insight, thanks for your reporting.
How do you base that opinion? She was the no 3 Republican until cast out, only for the crime of standing against Trump. Her voting record in Congress was more conservative than Stefanik whom replaced her.
unquestioning loyalty is more important than the rule of law to some relics of the past.
Some folks don't understand the difference between Fritz the Cat and Frederika the Pussy.
As if you won't just check the box for anyone with a D behind their name.
Is it good to simply check the box based on the letter [D or R] next to the name?
Amen to that!
Why, exactly, do you consider Cheney a RINO? Do you consider the current state of the GOP to be the that of Trump or the GOP of Reagan?
Seems to me, Cheney represents the pre-Trump GOP very well.
Right? If anything, it's Trump that's the RINO, and those supporting him. They've been led away from the GOP's traditional stated values, while Cheney holds firmly to them.
They are very firmly right wing populists. If that's what the Republican Party now wants to be, then who are we to disagree with them. Reagan gave them lip service under the Moral Majority banner, but didn't pander to them. His global and immigration policies would make even Reagan pariah in today's GOP.
Unfortunately, that's what it has come down to these days.
As an independent centrist haven't voted (R) in years.
Not since the T-party took the GOP too extreme.
MAGA makes the tea-party look like moderates.
I've been a republican for 50+years. too bad none of them ever run for office.
An independent votes regardless of party influences. But one can vote strictly for candidates of a single party and still be independent.
It depends on why one votes. Those who vote simply because of a party affiliation are NOT independent voters but rather are partisans. They support the party uber all. In contrast, those who vote for a candidate whose factors, in the judgment of the voter, best meet the desires of the voter are independents even if they wind up predominantly voting for candidates of a single party.
I agree in theory, but I'm not sure how someone who has ever voted for one party, could objectively call themselves independent..
Voting record does not determine independent thinking. It is the underlying reasons that determine independence (or not).
No, but it could determine if you're an independent voter or just talking out your ass... if you've only voted for d's or only voted for r's your whole life you're not really expressing independence, are you?
Here is an example: imagine a liberal voter who believes government should be a benevolent force to help those in need and that the CotUS needs to be interpreted per modern mores and values.
This voter will not likely have the opportunity to vote for an R who meets the factors most important to this voter (determined by the judgment of the voter) better than the D candidate.
This voter does not vote out of party loyalty, but rather ideology.
Ideology is not the same as partisanship.
Thanks for the response TiG. I think you're wrong. I think that adherence to ideology, based on degree, is partisanship.
Well if we had two parties whose candidates appealed to the ideology of a voter and that voter consistently voted with one of those parties then we would have a case to test partisan thinking vs. ideological thinking.
The fact that only one party offers candidates that appeal to this voter does not mean the voter simply votes out of party loyalty.
Hardly. That is obviously NOT what I wrote nor does it even remotely reflect my meaning.
How stupid do you think readers are?
Narcissists are great pretenders.
They only believe in themselves.
“Narcissists are great pretenders.”
Even worse, they are great predators.
The only God Trump worships is the almighty dollar sign.
Doesn't matter. The transformation of the GOP into an image of something they never accepted before is complete. What Cheney and other republicans think is now no longer relevant.
If Trump is successful in 2024, America and the remaining democracies will be faced with a political and economic readjustment the World has not seen since the fall of The Roman Empire.
It has been written in history that the collapse of the American Experiment of a democratic republic style of governance will occur from within and it will be driven by fear, rage and economic imbalance.
1. Of America's two dominant political parties, one does not care and uses those three items as a wedge issue and the other is afraid to take it on because it doesn't know how.
I would say the other isn't afraid to take them on, they and the rest of sane society just cannot find the handle to take them on. They keep looking for weakness when they should just be countering the narrative. At least the government bureaucracy is finally getting around to prosecuting the obvious acts that are tantamount to Treason.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. Whoever said that hit the nail on the head.
That far-right fascism is already here.
upton sinclair is credited with that, maybe... sorry, I'm too lazy to google it right now...
oops, sinclair lewis is apparently the author...
No, he didn’t. it’s a fake quote that left wingers circulate over and over and over. Our sites goldfish will no doubt repost it in a few weeks though.
sorry, but I don't take anybody that relies so heavily on a book of fake attributed quotes seriously.
So, why hasn't Donald Trump been indicted for insurrection? Liz Cheney says Trump is guilty. Isn't that enough?
A legitimate transfer of power would be peaceful. Was the 2020 election really legitimate? The powers-that-be turned every mailing address into a polling station. And then engaged in electioneering at those mailing-address polling stations in violation of the intent, if not the letter, of election laws. Why not bundle ballots with political advertising at in-person polling stations? Why not broadcast political advertising at in-person polling stations while voters fill out their ballots? Why not allow partisan promoters to stand at the voters shoulder and tell them how to vote at in-person polling stations? The loose enforcement of electioneering laws after turning mailing addresses into polling stations really does raise questions about the legitimacy of the election.
But, hey, the ends justify the means. That's been the guiding principle of American politics since Watergate. Rig the primaries, ignore election laws, play fast and loose with how voting is conducted, use every dirty trick possible because the ends always justify the means. No less an authority than the New York Times says so.
Cheney's style of politics should be familiar. After all, 'a win is a win'. The ends justify the means. We've heard that before from prominent politicians like Hillary Clinton. Politicians will do whatever it takes to benefit themselves the most. Liz Cheney is no different. Liz Cheney isn't any more serious or honorable than Donald Trump; they are engaged in the same business. If Liz Cheney were honorable and wedded to the truth then she would point out that Donald Trump has not been indicted for insurrection. In fact, Trump has not been indicted for anything that Cheney accused him of doing during the Democrat sponsored investigation. Yes, there's no doubt Democrats used Liz Cheney simply because the ends justify the means. And, more importantly, Liz Cheney allowed herself to be used by Democrats to play dirty politics.
Didn't everyone notice that Liz Cheney demands that voters be engaged and make the decisions that direct the future of the country? But Cheney was also adamant that voters should only be allowed the proper choices. Cheney's entire argument depends upon rigging elections to benefit herself. Cheney represents the best reason why we need a Trump on the ballot.
Indeed. Do you have an answer?
Yes. Good grief, Nerm.
Fantasy justifying irrational, irresponsible and unpatriotic actions.
A rather obvious supposition for why Trump hasn't been indicted for insurrection is because of the low chance of a conviction. A prosecutor would need to show that political speech is violence (overturning the BLM precedent) and that the Senate certification of the election results was more than ceremonial and perfunctory.
That deliberately ignores that mail-in voting did not incorporate or enforce existing election laws regarding electioneering at voting locations. Allowing campaigns to engage in electioneering at in-person polling stations would raise questions and concerns about the legitimacy of the election. But turning mailing addresses into polling stations allowed that type of electioneering. The way mail-in voting was conducted creates honest doubts about the legitimacy of the election.
Like kneeling in the rotunda of the Capitol building in solidarity with rioters using burning, looting, vandalizing, and attacking citizens on the street as political speech? Prominent Democrats endorsed violence as political speech and encouraged people to engage in more political violence.
Nonsense.
That is a common hypothesis. Smith clearly is being very careful given he is dealing with a former PotUS and a bunch of irrational supporters of same.
The 2020 election was not rigged. I am not going to entertain this nonsense.
Doesn't mailed ballots make the mailing address a polling place?
Votes at a polling place that are coerced, solicited, or delegated are not legitimate votes. The integrity of the voting process also factors into the legitimacy of an election.
A former POTUS and supporters are only important in the court of public opinion. Criminal courts enforcing laws are not supposed to be coerced by public opinion. However, minority politics has set the precedent that political violence used to coerce the courts is acceptable.
Minority politics has also established precedent that coercive political violence is an acceptable method of pursuing legislative actions and legislative outcomes. BLM set the precedent that political violence against government is not an insurrection.
The use of mail-in voting during the 2020 election did not incorporate or enforce prohibitions on electioneering during the casting of ballots. Joe Biden won the election on mail-in ballots that circumvented existing election laws concerning the casting of ballots. Of course the election was rigged and no amount of blue smoke will change that fact.
Ignoring election laws was the means that rigged the election. Ignoring that election laws were ignored won't suddenly validate the questionable legitimacy of the election. Just because a win is a win doesn't mean that illegitimate means provides a legitimate outcome. Democrats had to cheat to win so Biden in the White House is a cheat.
I dropped mine off at the post office.
Please, prove that people voted that were not eligible to vote. Until you do that you dont have warm spit.
This nonsense is getting out of hand.
Yeah, so? Where did you mark the ballot? Did you receive campaign literature in the mail after you received a ballot? Did you see broadcast political advertising after you received a ballot? Didn't you receive and see political advertising where you filled out the ballot?
None of that would be allowed at a legitimate polling station.
How do we know someone even voted once? How do we know a high school kid didn't fill out grandma's ballot?
None of that crap would ever ever ever make me vote for Trump.
That's understandable. I wouldn't entertain voting for Trump if someone else could drive Biden out of the White House. And, no matter what, I wouldn't vote for Trump because he is the best candidate.
As I have said many time before, Donald Trump is a clown, a buffoon who can't string three words together in a coherent sentence. Yeah, I recognize Trump is a piece of political shit. The country fared pretty well with Trump as President. But that positive record doesn't overcome the simple fact that Trump is wasting my air.
But Joe Biden is actively destroying the future of the United States. The prospect that Kamala Harris could become President should be enough to frighten anyone. Anyone that can stop Biden will get my vote. I don't need to know anything about the candidate other than they can beat Biden.
Some folks just make shit up as they go along.
Admitting it takes courage.
And yet, here you are supporting his claim of a rigged election.
I have also explained how the election was rigged by utilizing mail-in voting. [deleted]
Evidence? Because without evidence you're just a Trumpie.
The evidence is that election officials cannot certify that mail-in votes were free of coercion, solicitation, or delegation. Election officials has no control over or ability to monitor the process of voting at those dispersed remoted locations. Election officials can only make that certification for in-person voting at monitored polling places.
Election officials certifying election results that included mail-votes simply lied. There's no way that those mail-in votes could be certified because the voting was not monitored.
“Election officials certifying election results that included mail-votes simply lied.”
Dangerous and misleading accusation.
As an election judge, mail-in ballots are subject to bi-partisan signature verification. If discrepancies arise, the voter is invited to cure their signature in person to have their ballot counted.
It is this kind of dialogue, uttered in ignorance, that only contributes to an agenda. An agenda that does nothing but incite.
I’d invite you and anyone who voted this vitriol up to volunteer to become an election judge, or even a poll watcher and see for yourself the rigorous protocols put in place…but guessing you’d rather spout your poison.
Some people like to jump down rabbit holes. Mail in voting is a long established practice in the United States and people like those who say
are claiming that all mail in voting is tainted, or they are claiming only Democrats would try and influence grandma's mail in vote, which is a ridiculous assertion.
Signature verification is the only check that is possible for mail-in votes. But that is only one part of the voting process at in-person polling places. An election judge also monitors the voting to ensure that the votes have not been coerced, solicited, or delegated.
Election judges can monitor in-person voting and take steps to prevent electioneering. That's impossible for mail-in ballots. There is no way that an election official can certify the integrity of mail-in votes because mail-in voting is not monitored.
“Signature verification is the only check that is possible for mail-in votes.”
And the processes in place ensure that all duly verified ballots are counted.
The rest of your post is but regurgitation.
Mail-in voting threatens hard won election reforms achieved by the suffrage movement. Mail-in voting isn't that far removed from the old practice of voting in bars, saloons, and taverns. Political parties would like to do away with monitored voting to allow partisan control over voting.
It's rather amazing that those engaged in spittle spewing outrage about Jim Crow 2.0 turn a blind eye to the obvious abuses allowed by mail-in voting.
A duly verified ballot has not been coerced, solicited, or delegated. That verification (and certification) requires monitoring the casting of ballots to prohibit and prevent electioneering.
“Mail-in voting threatens hard won election reforms…”
No…it is a validation of hard won election reforms. Reforms suddenly threatened by those who would rather restrict the vote than encourage participation.
Pathetic and unpatriotic in their attempts.
That needs more explanation than blue smoke. How does unmonitored voting improve the integrity of elections?
Minimizing the problem of electioneering with mail-in voting would require prohibiting political advertising and campaign activities after the ballots are mailed. A door knocking campaign after the ballots are mailed is electioneering; that isn't any different than soliciting votes at an in-person polling place. Once the ballots are mailed, the political campaigning is finished. Restricting political campaigning after ballots are mailed doesn't discourage voter participation.
“How does unmonitored voting improve the integrity of elections?”
How many times will it take? The voting process is monitored, ensuring the integrity of the election process. Saying anything to the contrary is but despicable, destructive and delusional.
Of course he would vote for the former 'president' - he constantly spouts the nonsense that the former 'president' is the best choice
A lot of stupid ranting ignorance.
Some mainly conservative/red states have voted practically entirely by mail for years with no concerns whatsoever.
How the hell would a mail in vote be monitored???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What do you think it is that people like Nerm have such heartburn with mail-in voting? I think it's because it makes voting more available than having to drive to a voting booth. When one lives in a remote area, getting to that polling place could be difficult, which is why mail in voting is a great option
spittle spewing outrage? i only hear that from the 'right' regarding mail in voting and how it's not valid
the idea of funneling 170 million in person voters thru a limited number of locations in 1 day works to the advantage of federalists and fascists...
Exactly. The harder they make it for people to vote, the more likely they gain power
Hey Nerm - I bet you vote by mail. With all your spittle spewing outrage against mail in voting, I bet that's how you vote.
The reason that electioneering is illegal 100 feet from polling places is to prevent armed racist thugs from intimidating voters. Each mail in ballot has a serial number in the barcode that has to match the name of a registered voter. They check signatures against registration forms. There are a lot of safeguards in place to assure the integrity of elections. We've been doing this for over 200 years now and we're the best in the world at it.
Every ballot cast at a monitored polling place has a serial number that must match the name of the registered voter. Registrations and signatures are checked by poll workers before a ballot is handed out. Attempting to fit the round peg of monitored voting into the square hole of unmonitored mail-in voting is not honest. Yes, that round peg will fit into a square hole but obviously its not the same.
We've also been rigging elections for a long time in the United States. The checks and safeguards incorporated into monitored voting were reforms intended to address past problems. Mail in voting circumvents the election reforms specifically put in place to address rigged elections. The 2020 election was a step backward.
What prevents armed racist thugs intimidating voters during a door knocking ground campaign? The voters already have their mail-in ballots so it doesn't seem the integrity of the election is being protected.
The restrictions at polling stations prohibit political activity that would coerce, solicit, or delegate votes. Maintaining that same integrity for mail-in voting would require prohibitions on political activity. When the ballot are mailed then political activity must cease; that is what happens at polling places. Restricting and prohibiting political activity once voting begins does not hamper or discourage voting.
Safeguarding the integrity of mail-in votes wouldn't be that difficult. Simply prohibit all political campaign activity when the ballots are mailed to voters. If a state begins mailing ballots on Oct. 1 then Presidential campaign activity must cease on Oct. 1.
The restrictions and prohibitions on political activity at polling places does not hamper or discourage voting. If those restrictions and prohibitions on political activity at polling places is not enforced then the integrity of the election cannot be certified. Mailing ballots turns mailing addresses into polling places. The same restrictions and prohibitions on political activity should apply for mailed ballots, too.
Expanding voting by using mail ballots of necessity requires expanding restrictions and prohibitions on political activity. Restricting and prohibiting political activities does not hamper or discourage voting at monitored polling places and will not hamper or discourage mail-in voting.
The reason the 2020 election was rigged is because the restrictions and prohibitions on political activity at polling places was not incorporated or enforced for mail-in voting. There is no way to certify the integrity of the 2020 election.
but, but, but don't you know it's not valid because it's not 'monitored' whatever the fuck that means.
You have absolutely no clue whatsoever what you're talking about.
Clueless, completely and utterly clueless
How do you know that Grandma didn't? She signed it.
There must be a point at which people trust each other. If there is anything that was hurt by Trump's "big lie" campaign it was the basic trust of people for one another.
You are correct of course, but what I dont get is why people like Nerm assume that Democrats would convince or coerce grandma to mail vote a certain way but Republicans wouldnt. Are we supposed to believe that Republicans are more honest?
Well, that's the point isn't it? There's no way to be certain (to certify the ballot) without expending a lot of time and resources to check all the ballots.
That's quite a stretch even for you.
She signed it. That is the check. If the signatures are called into question, the person is contacted. At some point, you just have to trust somebody.
Speaking of Grandma, my own grandmother was denied the right to vote. By my grandfather. She never learned to drive, and they lived in rural WV. He wouldn't drive her to the polls on Election Day, because he knew she'd vote Democrat, and he was a Republican. Had mail-in voting been a thing in her day, she'd have been able to vote.
My dad was so upset when he found that out, but Grandpa was long dead by then. "I'd have taken her to vote, if I'd only known."
My grandmother's right to vote was suppressed by the lack of mail-in voting (and my grandfather's coercion).
A witness signature is also required (but I don't know if all states require a witness). The signature verifies the voter registration. That sort of verification for registration is also done at in-person polling places. The registration check prevents a person from voting more than once and prevents an ineligible person from voting.
The same witness signature on a number of ballots raises questions about electioneering during voting. AFAIK the witness signatures were not recorded, tracked, reviewed, or verified during the 2020 election. AFAIK a witness is not required to be an eligible, registered voter.
The polling place for in-person voting is monitored to prevent electioneering during voting. the activity of making speeches and visiting people to try to persuade them to vote for a particular politician or political party in an election. Electioneering includes many different types of coercion, solicitation, and delegation activities intended to influence voting. Monitoring the polling place also keeps a voters choices private without fear of retribution.
Monitoring a polling place is supposed to keep political parties away during voting and prohibit partisan meddling with voters during voting. Monitoring the polling place also keeps a voters choices private without fear of retribution. The actual process of voting and casting ballots is required by law to be non-partisan. The political parties have forced their way into polling places to act as monitors but those partisan monitors will be summarily ejected if they attempt to coerce, solicit, or seek delegation of votes. Intimidating voters is a Federal crime and those monitoring polling places are enforcing Federal law.
The process for mail-in voting did not incorporate or enforce restrictions and prohibitions on electioneering during voting. The process for mail-in voting did not incorporate measures to prevent voter intimidation. The way mail-in voting was conducted does not allow certifying that the voting was free of interference and meddling by electioneering activities. If's not surprising that political parties and organizations who believe they have a 'ground game' advantage desire unmonitored mail-in voting because they have an advantage in persuading and influencing voters while they are voting.
Or Grandpa could have forced Grandma to vote the way he wanted. The process of mail-in voting did not include any way to prevent that sort of coercion and intimidation. With mail-in voting, Grandpa could have gotten two votes instead of one.
Grandpa wouldn't have lifted a finger toward Grandma. He deprived her of her right to vote without violence, but he deprived her, just the same.
As do I. Not sure I completely trust my mail carriers.
To paraphrase….never have so many words meant so little to so few.
it's always a fucking novel just to get a single short idea across...
When more people are able to vote, the result is generally democratic. Republicans know this so do their best to suppress voting whenever they can. Shutting down polling places and fighting against voting by mail are just two of those tactics.
republicans are furiously backpedaling to regain their voter eligibility ideals of only white xtian property owners being able to vote.
oops, I mean white xtian male property owners...
Can't forget the ladies that conservatives banned for decades.
I'm in favor of willfully subordinate trumpsterettes having no voice in gov't...
... actually anyone gullible enough to vote against their own interests.
I watched a video of an interview with Vivek Ramaswamy. He is asked to say whether he thinks Biden won the 2020 election. Ramaswamy dances a little, but also says there is reason to doubt Biden won the election. How so, the interviewers asks , and then Ramaswamy says that polling showed that if the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post had not been "suppressed" on Twitter that maybe Trump would have won.
Whatever it is, the Hunter Biden laptop story is not evidence that the election was illegitimate or that Trump was the real winner.
There is only one thing that makes an election illegitimate, and that is if people who are not eligible to vote do, and/or if people vote twice. A speculation that people would have voted one way or the other if X had occurred is not evidence of a tainted election.
When people went to vote in 2016 no one knew that Trump Jr and Kushner had met with Russians in Trump Tower to try and get dirt from the Russian government on Clinton. I can just as well say that if that had been known she would have won. But that is not the way it works.
Roughly the same goes for right wing complaints about mail in voting. As long as one person casts one vote it doesnt matter what the procedure was.
every one of the GOP POTUS candidates have to strap on the 2020 election denial knee pads until the primaries are over because they know who votes in them.
no, the maga hats, flags, and knee pads give it away...
"Cheney's style of politics should be familiar."
Well, she is her father's daughter after all.
With all due respect, Ed, I bet you voted for the Bush-Cheny ticket...twice
Then you would be in error. I did vote the first time for them, but then after seeing the excesses and the blatant out and out graft of Halyburton on military bases in the Middle East where service members died due to shoddy construction while Cheny was still connected to them.
Then I stand corrected. I respect your decision. Nobody knew what was going to happen when Cheney/Bush took office. Then we found out
I knew.
I thought Bush just might make a good president. I was so wrong
he would've made a good doorstop...
Me to a T... Voted for them the first time, then when I saw all the BS? Nope.
He fooled a lot of people.
I voted for Bush senior. We were both wrong.
No it's not enough. You have to have evidence.
There is plenty of evidence.
What we needed was honest senate republicans.
It's clear from Trump's current rally rhetoric that he's doubling down on all the bullshit that's gotten him to where he is now and sounds more Authoritarian as ever.
his supporters lap that shit up...
Which is the tail and which the dog?
I'm more concerned about the guy that represents the space below where the tail joins the dog.
Thanks, we will note your concern.
no worries, this time I wasn't talking about you...
Look at the leftists come out in support of Liz who previously wouldn't cross the street to piss on her if she were on fire.
All it took was selling out her morals, soul, integrity, and giving up whatever power she had in the Republican party. All in the name of a personal vendetta against Trump.
I am sure there is a nice cushy landing spot for her on the View as the newest "conservative" punching bag; CNN as a "conservative" apologist; or the Lincoln Project as a sell out.
So long as she is meek, timid, and tell leftists what they want to hear- she will have an income.
The Cheney name has no power; which everyone should be thankful for.
Great job Liz.
Would Ronald Reagan consider Trump or Cheney to be an exemplar for his GOP?
You think Reagan would consider either them to be an exemplar for his GOP?
Trump would be closer to Reagan politically. Both were former Democrats. Both had stronger support among independents and disillusioned Democrats. Both had much stronger administrations than they were leaders. Democrats despised both and went after them and their administrations mercilessly. Both passed legislation that would be been never been possible under traditional Republican Presidents.
Neither would be closer to Reagan morally (Iran/Contra BS not withstanding). Reagan wouldn't stand for Trump's personal antics and grand standing. He definitely wouldn't stand for Liz selling out to the Democrats. Nor would he tolerate the amount of power the Cheney family had in the Republican party before she crapped out.
By the way, I don't worship Reagan. The man made a lot of mistakes. He just wasn't around when the bills came due during Bush Sr's administration. While Bush Sr wasn't a good president (like Carter he has been an excellent ex President).
There is a reason that angry Republicans turned to Ross Perot; and let the Clinton rise to power occur.
How did Cheney 'sell out' to the Ds? Are you referring to her seeking to hold Trump accountable? Is that what you mean?
Surely you are aware of Trump's abysmal morals (and character). Illustrate how you can possibly, with a straight face, equate the morality of Liz Cheney with Trump. Be specific. Your "selling out to the Ds" is actually an argument for Cheney's morals (giving up her powerful standing / political career in the GOP to hold Trump accountable). And rising to a position of power is not an argument for poor morals.
What a load of bullshit.
Reagan would be aghast at the state of the GOP with Trump as its leader.
This is how I know you have no clue what you are talking about. Reagan followed the conservative Southern Democrat platform which after the Civil Rights Act turned into the Republican Party. Trump hobnobbed with other rich connected main stream liberal New York Democrats. Two totally different political parties. Reagan's globalist attitude would piss off all the modern day right wing populists as under his watch the business lobby group pushed laws to make it easier to crush American factory union jobs and move them to China.
The only reason trmp ran as a republican is because he knew the Democrats wanted nothing to do with him
Trump said that republicans were the only people stupid enough to vote for him.
one of the few truths he's ever uttered...
I don't support Liz, just find her a bit more honest than most deplorables.