Right, but we were talking about the hypothetical.RMF5630 said:Ha, Ha...Sam Lowry said:Father of the Year.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:Same language, different scenarios, vastly different meanings:RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return %A0him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. %A0This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him? %A0Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. %A0 he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. %A0he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. %A0 They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. %A0Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. %A0 All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? %A0No way. %A0
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying %A0"see"!!! %A0Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. %A0He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea! %A0
He is a dick, granted. I agree. %A0 Insurrection, overthrow election by force? %A0No way. %A0
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? %A0You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
1. You say you're disappointed in your kid, and your neighbors try to hang him.
2. Your neighbors want to hang your kid, and all you say is that you're disappointed in him.
Context matters.
And under neither scenario did I say to hang the kid.
My kids are grown and graduated from college, I have a successful track record of progeny survival to adulthood...
Jan 6 committee
127,000 Views |
3026 Replies |
Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
I agree.Harrison Bergeron said:It is not even in the same ballpark. The Democrats from the Majority Leader to the Administration made direct threats on SCOTUS - rule our way or pay the consequences. And additional direct threats to pack to SCOTUS, i.e. rule our way our we will add so many justices to fully politicize the Court. That is exponentially more a threat to democracy - if one believes an independent judiciary is critical to our government - that Buffalo Man trespassing in the Capitol for three hours.Oldbear83 said:The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.Harrison Bergeron said:The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
And the assassination of even one SCOTUS Justice would be shattering to our nation in ways your little paranoia about Trump does not begin to approach.
There was an actual attempt to kill Kavanaugh. This 'Jan 6' crap is just a stale malicious smear.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
plenty of reports about it if you bother to lookOsodecentx said:4th and Inches said:Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DCOsodecentx said:If they are armed, as their leader well knows4th and Inches said:"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outsideOsodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree
Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
The core of my case has always been that Trump's supporters attempted an insurrection. If the evidence developed by the committee shows that Trump was involved, of course I'm interested in seeing it. Their process is flawed, something for which Republicans are at least partly to blame, but that doesn't mean the evidence can be ignored.whiterock said:My sister was convinced for a good long while that election fraud would be proven and the military would step in to replace Biden. Is she an insurrectionist, too? Is her belief evidence that Trump was an insurrectionist?Sam Lowry said:He didn't try to insert the military into the equation. I thought you knew that when you said "he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it." So I don't know what you're talking about there. Trump apparently believed he could retain power through a combination of fraud, bullying, and clever manipulation of procedure by a team of lawyers who turned out to be far from clever. If he had succeeded, there would have been no opposition from the military and no reason for Trump to involve them. Many of the insurrectionists at the Capitol did believe the military would get involved, and they discussed it on social media in the weeks leading up to the event, but that was only speculation on their part.whiterock said:Here's the barrier that smacks your statement in the forehead: show us a successful insurrection that occurred without at minimum the acquiescence of the military.Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Related problems:
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, how could he not have assumed they would oppose him?
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, why did he try to insert them into the equation?
Your thinking on this is sub-sophomoric.
My thinking has to do with what Trump and his supporters believed and what they were attempting to do. Your thinking is fixated on what would have been a smart plan for insurrection, but that isn't really the point. No one is arguing that they had a smart plan.
What a handful of muddle-headed protesters were thinking is not terribly germane to the core of your case that Trump attempted an insurrection. Either HE did or didn't. The best you got is that he attempted to ramp up pressure in hopes that something would happen to tip things his way. That's an impossible case to prove, not insurrection even if you did, and there is the added burden of negative evidence to refute elements of insurrection.
Don't be like my sister, Sam. Don't live in a make-believe world you need to exist to justify the way you need to feel. No insurrectionist who has at his command the mightiest military in the world overturns Constitutional order without having that military on his side. No insurrectionist with such power would act without KNOWING how they would respond or not.
You are making an ass of yourself here.
You are hardly alone in that, but an ass nonetheless.
On the other hand, polling is clear that you are digging an ever deeper hole on something the American people have already determined is not a serious problem, so we should encourage you to continue But along the way, you are destroying the very institutions you purport to be protecting from one Donald John Trump.
I don't deny some idiots went to the Capital area with weapons. They should have been cited and the weapons confiscated.4th and Inches said:plenty of repoets about it if you bother to lookOsodecentx said:4th and Inches said:Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DCOsodecentx said:If they are armed, as their leader well knows4th and Inches said:"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outsideOsodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree
Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so
I fail to see how this goes further to show that within our Government of a sitting Presidential Administration there was a coup to overthrow the Government, the Administration (including Trump) told people to break into Congress to threaten Congress, and that they were part of any plot.
So far alot of contextual speculation, supposition and have sentences to make a jump to either criminal or ban to hold public office. So, far no evidence to show any involvement, maybe some enjoyment with Congresses blight after the Summer of Love, maybe some delay in responding, but ultimately they did everything the Administration was supposed to do.
Of course they're in the same ballpark. One attempted to deprive the country of a duly appointed justice, and the other attempted to deprive us of a duly elected president.Harrison Bergeron said:It is not even in the same ballpark. The Democrats from the Majority Leader to the Administration made direct threats on SCOTUS - rule our way or pay the consequences. And additional direct threats to pack to SCOTUS, i.e. rule our way our we will add so many justices to fully politicize the Court. That is exponentially more a threat to democracy - if one believes an independent judiciary is critical to our government - that Buffalo Man trespassing in the Capitol for three hours.Oldbear83 said:The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.Harrison Bergeron said:The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
And the assassination of even one SCOTUS Justice would be shattering to our nation in ways your little paranoia about Trump does not begin to approach.
Actually, one tried to undermine the independence and legitimacy of one of the three branches of government. One trespassed in a silly costume.Sam Lowry said:Of course they're in the same ballpark. One attempted to deprive the country of a duly appointed justice, and the other attempted to deprive us of a duly elected president.Harrison Bergeron said:It is not even in the same ballpark. The Democrats from the Majority Leader to the Administration made direct threats on SCOTUS - rule our way or pay the consequences. And additional direct threats to pack to SCOTUS, i.e. rule our way our we will add so many justices to fully politicize the Court. That is exponentially more a threat to democracy - if one believes an independent judiciary is critical to our government - that Buffalo Man trespassing in the Capitol for three hours.Oldbear83 said:The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.Harrison Bergeron said:The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
And the assassination of even one SCOTUS Justice would be shattering to our nation in ways your little paranoia about Trump does not begin to approach.
Trespassing in a silly costume doesn't normally lead to charges of seditious conspiracy or other felonies. But some of you are in denial and always have been.Harrison Bergeron said:Actually, one tried to undermine the independence and legitimacy of one of the three branches of government. One trespassed in a silly costume.Sam Lowry said:Of course they're in the same ballpark. One attempted to deprive the country of a duly appointed justice, and the other attempted to deprive us of a duly elected president.Harrison Bergeron said:It is not even in the same ballpark. The Democrats from the Majority Leader to the Administration made direct threats on SCOTUS - rule our way or pay the consequences. And additional direct threats to pack to SCOTUS, i.e. rule our way our we will add so many justices to fully politicize the Court. That is exponentially more a threat to democracy - if one believes an independent judiciary is critical to our government - that Buffalo Man trespassing in the Capitol for three hours.Oldbear83 said:The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.Harrison Bergeron said:The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
And the assassination of even one SCOTUS Justice would be shattering to our nation in ways your little paranoia about Trump does not begin to approach.
I still do not see the attempt to deprive us of a duly elected President. They were pissed at Congress and acted out. I still don't see how anything on January 6th could result in the 2020 Election being put aside and Trump remaining in power. I saw alot of selfies. I saw idiots running around. I saw a lot of people that should be prosecuted. I still do not see any end game to get them where you say they wanted to go, led by Trump.Sam Lowry said:Of course they're in the same ballpark. One attempted to deprive the country of a duly appointed justice, and the other attempted to deprive us of a duly elected president.Harrison Bergeron said:It is not even in the same ballpark. The Democrats from the Majority Leader to the Administration made direct threats on SCOTUS - rule our way or pay the consequences. And additional direct threats to pack to SCOTUS, i.e. rule our way our we will add so many justices to fully politicize the Court. That is exponentially more a threat to democracy - if one believes an independent judiciary is critical to our government - that Buffalo Man trespassing in the Capitol for three hours.Oldbear83 said:The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.Sam Lowry said:I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.Harrison Bergeron said:The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
And the assassination of even one SCOTUS Justice would be shattering to our nation in ways your little paranoia about Trump does not begin to approach.
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Here you go with the "they thought" and "it seems" and "we know". As I said, only one acceptable outcome - Trump is guilty ban him from public office. Nothing else will satisfy. Even though there is nothing tying him to what you are saying besides he is disappointed in Pence...Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
You asked what their end game was.RMF5630 said:Here you go with the "they thought" and "it seems" and "we know". As I said, only one acceptable outcome - Trump is guilty ban him from public office. Nothing else will satisfy. Even though there is nothing tying him to what you are saying besides he is disappointed in Pence...Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
If that is it. We need them all committed.Sam Lowry said:You asked what their end game was.RMF5630 said:Here you go with the "they thought" and "it seems" and "we know". As I said, only one acceptable outcome - Trump is guilty ban him from public office. Nothing else will satisfy. Even though there is nothing tying him to what you are saying besides he is disappointed in Pence...Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
I am with you.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Where Sam and I differ is that I don't believe Trump had anything to do with it and knew the election was not being overturned. I agree he is opportunistic and enjoyed getting them riled up. I do believe that after the Summer of Love he enjoyed Congress on their heels, even if for an afternoon. But was it his idea or thought he would take over the Govt? No way.
Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Sam: "That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies."
Moe irony from Sam
Moe irony from Sam
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Have patience, it takes time. If the committee released everything they knew tomorrow, it would just barely be half-baked.RMF5630 said:They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
When do the polls open? Oh yeah, about 6 weeks after the next Corona variant requires mail in voting. That is when the evidence will come out, so one can forget when they vote.Oldbear83 said:Have patience, it takes time. If the committee released everything they knew tomorrow, it would just barely be half-baked.RMF5630 said:They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
That is in indictments to which a number pleaded guiltyRMF5630 said:Here you go with the "they thought" and "it seems" and "we know". As I said, only one acceptable outcome - Trump is guilty ban him from public office. Nothing else will satisfy. Even though there is nothing tying him to what you are saying besides he is disappointed in Pence...Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
More hearings are scheduled. We've already learned a lot. Trump's lawyer to testify soon.RMF5630 said:They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Yes, they plead guilty. They thought Trump would do A, B, and C.Osodecentx said:That is in indictments to which a number pleaded guiltyRMF5630 said:Here you go with the "they thought" and "it seems" and "we know". As I said, only one acceptable outcome - Trump is guilty ban him from public office. Nothing else will satisfy. Even though there is nothing tying him to what you are saying besides he is disappointed in Pence...Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
There is nothing that Trump actually did or directed them to do. That is the problem!
I don't know, I'm not really following the broadcasts. I may watch Cipollone if I have time.RMF5630 said:They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Sam Lowry said:I don't know, I'm not really following the broadcasts. I may watch Cipollone if I have time.RMF5630 said:They have evidence? When are they going to break that out?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
Cipollone will be interesting. That might be a prime time event on the Li, Show. I would tune in to that.
Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
A mere prank…J6 just goes to show the Dems have no sense of humor.Osodecentx said:Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
you brainwashed people?Sam Lowry said:Because they were hearing it from the same alt-right influencers who helped convince them the election was stolen. That's what happens when you brainwash people with a constant stream of lies. Inevitably some of them will be crazy enough to take action. Whether Trump planned it that way, I don't know. We'll see where the evidence leads.4th and Inches said:why? The military said they would follow a smooth transition and the constitution..Sam Lowry said:
The voters elected Biden. The rioters tried to keep Biden out. They thought the military would support Trump and he would use them if necessary to stay in power.
Seems like a cry for mental help
LoL
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
–Horace
“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
So, let's look at what actually happened, not speculated, not inferred.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Pence - Certified
Trnump - left the White House the morning of the 20th
Biden - Inaugirated on the 20th
Trump - didn't pardon any one
Those are facts.
Osodecentx said:Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
The Capitol was attacked. The Electoral Vote count was disruptedGrowlTowel said:Osodecentx said:Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.
QFPGrowlTowel said:Osodecentx said:Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.
The Electoral Vote has been disrupted every time for at least the past two occasions. Democrats were obstructing the vote count in 2016 by using groundless objections. But by all you means, you folks continue to stare deeply at the political Rorschach test that is the J6 Committee.Osodecentx said:The Capitol was attacked. The Electoral Vote count was disruptedGrowlTowel said:Osodecentx said:Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote countGrowlTowel said:Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.Osodecentx said:Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.RMF5630 said:I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.Osodecentx said:We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.RMF5630 said:Here you go again.Osodecentx said:"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"RMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rallyRMF5630 said:Osodecentx said:The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.RMF5630 said:Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.Osodecentx said:YesRMF5630 said:Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?Sam Lowry said:That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.whiterock said:and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.Sam Lowry said:He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.Harrison Bergeron said:Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.Sam Lowry said:I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.Harrison Bergeron said:Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.Sam Lowry said:
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
ETA: Disregard emoji.
The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.
Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Pence wasn't sure
The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.
Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.
You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!
He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.
So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol
1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem
This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."
"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."
He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."
"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.
Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!
I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.
So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?
Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS
Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.