Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

should he have said we gotta fight like hell to stop them?

---

In that context I don't think it would have mattered. "Fight like hell" can have a different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a bunch of journalists at a media event or a bunch of armed fanatics at what they believe to be a crisis.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

should he have said we gotta fight like hell to stop them?

---

In that context I don't think it would have mattered. "Fight like hell" can have a different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a bunch of journalists at a media event or a bunch of armed fanatics at what they believe to be a crisis.

---

nope, the end user of the quote is the same.. the radical nutjobs who make bad decisions.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

But he wasn't sane enough to realize that there was no end game. And he thought knocking off Pence was a good idea? Really Sam? You keep throwing out these scenarios with end games that have no rational conclusion outside of being arrested. Yet, he was rational enough to know the military would not help. You keep jumping between rational, cold calculating and lunatic plans that have no hope of success.

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

should he have said we gotta fight like hell to stop them?

---

In that context I don't think it would have mattered. "Fight like hell" can have a different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a bunch of journalists at a media event or a bunch of armed fanatics at what they believe to be a crisis.

---

nope, the end user of the quote is the same.. the radical nutjobs who make bad decisions.

---

No, it can't and doesn't work that way. Otherwise any poor fool whose words are misinterpreted would have the same liability as a terrorist.

---

Biden: "We made incredible progress on the economy from where we were a year and a half ago. We've got a long way to go because of inflation, because of the, I call it the Putin tax increase, the Putin, because of gasoline... I'm fighting like hell to lower costs on things." pic.twitter.com/8E3sZOwE69

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) July 6, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Sigh.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him? %A0

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return %A0him to the Capitol.

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

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him? %A0

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return %A0him to the Capitol.

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

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

Same language, different scenarios, vastly different meanings:

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.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him? %A0

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return %A0him to the Capitol.

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

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

Same language, different scenarios, vastly different meanings:

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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him? %A0

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return %A0him to the Capitol.

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

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

Same language, different scenarios, vastly different meanings:

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.

---

Father of the Year.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, no they are not.

They are spewing cherry-picked stories with the veracity of Joe Isuzu .

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

Here you go again.

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!

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

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 DC

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

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

The charge against that man is 'attempted murder', Sam.

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.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

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 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.

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.

---

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.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

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.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

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.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

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.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
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

---

Here you go again.

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!

---

We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.

I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.

---