His “cause” that would be what, overturned what even his own AG and many local state AG’s and 50+ courts said was a safe and legal election? I thought the Twitter and other bans were going to drive him nuts, now the PGA and RNA are pulling all golf tourneys from his golf courses, that’s got to sting.

You know better that's not my point. But if you view Trump as the leader of a terrorist movement, as we should, then those who followed are not all alike. There are the complicit enablers. The violent criminals. And those who followed a path that they may want to get off.

No actually, the following was written by someone paid by this country to control the growth of violent terrorism and fight extremist groups, who has actually done it.

Political commentators are falling into mistake that violent terror threats get less so if some mercy (no impeachment) is shown its leader. There is history of counterterrorism efforts that show otherwise. Only complete isolation, powerlessness, deplatforming, of leader works.
For the next 10 days and beyond, Trump has to be seen as ineffectual, without oxygen, so he can not have second act. No soft exit. It’s horrible to admit, but do not buy into argument that violence is less if we put a brake on gas pedal. They need to be stopped.
But the violence is actually worse if they, and future recruits, view him as strong. They want to back a winner. We prepare for violence but it will be less so in the future with no leadership and if they know their leader can’t help them.
Maybe I’m sounding too harsh, no mercy etc. He may be president of the United States but he is also inciter of domestic terrorism. And his complete isolation and condemnation is the safest path forward. We can’t stop now. Total isolation.

senate democrats are calling for the expulsion of Cruz and Hawley. What do you think? is it always a punishable
offense to disagree with democrats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the dems are demanding one of our local reps step down for daring to go to Washington....

No, the cause was to get the courts, especially SCOTUS, to look at the evidence that was compiled. But that didn't happen. It was not even discussed. It was just shut down, referred to as baseless, false, etc. Or given the slightest nod that there might have been fraud, but not enough to change the election.

In other words, debunked by proclamation.

I heard some of the evidence and would have liked a thorough inquiry into it. Even, now that it is over, I would still like some reliable (if that's possible) inquiry/investigation into what and how much fraud there was. And what the actual potential for fraud is with the wholesale of ballots being mailed to those who didn't ask for them, and how open to fraud the voting machines were. And I would like to hear SCOTUS argue the constitutionality of state governors or secretaries of state overriding state legislatures in allowing procedures that those legislatures didn't allow. And so forth.

I understand how those who wanted Trump defeated would rather that the above did not happen. But it leaves a bad taste, to say the least, in those otherwise inclined. It certainly furthers the corrosion in trust that many of us have in how our governments operate.

But winning helps. It can keep sweeping such concerns under the dirty rug of unbridled democracy.

Wow surprised you weren’t on a bus to join in the insurrection!

It’s an open and shut case. Trump incited a violent insurrection against another branch of government. He needs to leave office now—either via resignation, the 25th Amendment, or impeachment. His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled.

Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

Thousands of Yale and Harvard law school alumni and students petition for Cruz and Hawley to be disbarred.

Trump supporters are not victimized by liberal elites. They are victims of their own worthless leaders.

Trump, Hawley, Cruz: They are all unprincipled self-promoters who have been fundraising on the false promise of uncovering nonexistent election fraud.

They know their claims are lies and they keep shouting them out. They have never produced one piece of evidence. If they want to prove their case, let their evidence see the light of day.

It is currently up to 60+ lost cases in court with maybe one win.
They were not cases that represented difficult questions when the court had to draw a hard line.

You want to see unity, then call for the GOP leadership fronted by the VP to hold a National address to denounce the lie that the election was stolen.

Thanks for the chuckle. Had to laugh at the notion that there was an "insurrection!" If so, twas a rather weak attempt. Except for the few deaths, one, the first, committed by the government, it sometimes more resembled a Monty Python movie, like the guy planting his butt on Pelosi's office furniture.

OK, OK, I know it was a lot worse than that. Don't mean to minimize it. But a serious "insurrection!"?

If it was an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government, which established government or civil authority was it revolting against. Trump was the established President of that established government. Was Trump revolting against himself?

Oh no the wow was my response that you feel 50+ courts either ignored or refused to review evidence of voter fraud, clearly it’s time to get out of your bunker for fresh air.

do you think their plan was to overturn the election? what was the plan? how were they going to do that?

it was a riot, a garden variety political riot done by a bunch of jerks ( previously, no longer, a tactic of the liberal brat) who can’t take no for an answer. it was never, ever going to overturn an election, here was no plan to do so. it was a modern day temper tantrum. ,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well there is no cure for stupid, because even though the election was a done deal, our president, his family and personal lawyer, egged on a mob of supporters to attempt it. GOP sympathizers were complicit and actively encouraged this protest. What if they had more support, what if military was on board, how far a reach is the overthrow of our democracy? Your seem to think this is no different than some BLM protest gone bad, nothing could be more wrong and this craziness is far from over.

Trump did not incite an insurrection. He didn't, ask for or order anyone to use violence, destroy anything, harm or kill anyone. He did not ask for Congress to be overthrown.

No mob had the power to do that. It sounds silly to even say that. What is your worst scenario. That all of Congress would be killed? Then what would happen to the relatively few and weakly armed who stormed the building? They would somehow be untouched, victorious, and the rulers of Congress?

That is nonsense. To say anybody orchestrated such an obviously doomed attempt, unless they were total idiots (I know that you think Trump is this mastermind idiot capable of controlling thousands of people to do things he didn't specify but somehow really wanted and able to get 74 million to vote for him). I'm not getting how what you posit is "an open and shut case."

On the contrary, Trump specifically noted that it would be a peaceful law abiding demonstration. Sounds like you're trying to incite what you would call an insurrection against the President.

And "His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled"? Is this some call to insurrection against members of Congress? You really do sound like a Castro type revolutionary. A Bolshevik. Maybe slightly milder.

Well, sometimes you have a shoe bomber and sometimes it's Lockerbie. I don't want either.

What would have happened if as some of the rioters said, they hung Pence, shot Pelosi and killed Grassley?
Stole the votes from the Electoral College?
They had a map of the tunnels [in the basement of the Capitol], and they were talking about how they're going to be able to stop Congress from leaving. They imagined that this was the day there were going to be mass executions of Congressmen.

If you want to understand the Real Deep State, the biggest thing you need to know is it’s institutional, impersonal, and operates on a national scale.
The law enforcement-intelligence-national security bureaucracy doesn’t really care about a lot of the little things people think it cares about. It’s mostly focused on terrorists, serial killers, narco-traffickers, and foreign governments. Threats to the nation.

Previous QAnon activity wasn’t on that scale, but the Capitol attack is. I don’t think this has sunk in yet. It wasn’t 9/11, but it was bigger than, for example, Benghazi.

Americans storming the Capitol to prevent Congress from carrying out election law hasn’t happened before. When four Puerto Rican nationalists shot at Congressmen from the House balcony in 1954, they were rightly called terrorists, convicted in federal court, and imprisoned. And that was just four attackers, no one died, and it wasn’t encouraged by a losing presidential candidate to disrupt the peaceful transition of power.

The Capitol attack was a unique event in American history, something they’ll teach about in high school. National security analysts are comparing it to last year’s FBI-thwarted plot to kidnap and execute Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, which came a few months after armed demonstrators forcefully stopped business at the Michigan statehouse. There have been armed post-election demonstrations at multiple statehouses, and reports of plots to storm them next week.

It’s a pattern.

And after the Capitol attack, the Deep State is going to take it seriously.

The SCOTUS did not review the evidence. They said in most cases that the plaintiffs had no standing. Or they deferred to decisions of State Courts even though the Constitution states that state legislatures, not governors or secretaries of state, had the authority to impose how voting or appointing electors was to be done.

It sounds like you're depending entirely on the final proclamations and are not familiar with the details of the actual evidence that was gathered. It's probably more comfortable in that kind of bunker.

I thought you were smarter, but what the president says and has been saying since the loss matters, especially in light of his rabid base buying into this stolen election conspiracy theory. Yes I’d agree it’s Trumps lame arse attempt at a coup that was domed from the start, but thinking he, his family, his lawyer and GOP minions didn’t incite an attempted coup to somehow change (regardless of low odds) is denying the obvious.

It was a rally that ended up as something liberals feel they can refer to as a coup. Who would have expected more?

I guess that is all well and good. They're certainly not angels. In the past, many Dems didn't trust them. Today many Repubs and libertarians don't trust them. They have done things to earn that mistrust. We've hashed a lot of that out on this forum.

The "obvious"--actual words, not secret conjectured code--doesn't lead to a conclusion that Trump and his GOP minions incited a coup. Did Pelosi, Schumer, and their Democrat minions incite leftist rioters over the summer and fall and still going on now?

Proud boys stand down and stand by, looks like seven white supremacy groups have been identified as organizing this riot, gee wiz where would they get that idea from. Hey you are DeBarr and have defended him for four years, it’s predictable and frankly it’s almost comical at this stage of this game show. I don’t know what’s more amusing, your defenses of all he does, or SD actually still believing he is the best president of our lifetime.

Hmm, I suppose Stop the Steal was a Euphemism for peaceable assembly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't think it was intended to be a euphemism, certainly not one for a riot. But you will continue to try persuading with innuendo, insinuation, conjecture, and lies. It's what you do. I believe you really think that is the way, when you have no other, to save what you consider our Democracy.

If a Democracy depends on deceit, its probably more of a rigged authoritarian regime--with the understanding, of course, that it is for the good of the people--like Progressivism.

Barr severely criticized Trump for this riot--you claimed he was a Trump bootlicker--quite a way to lick Trump's boots. I guess I cannot be called DeBarr anymore. Oh . . . I guess you can call me whatever you want. Whatever gives some flavor, some spice, to your just say stuff.

And your characterizing what I did as defending Trump deflected from my pointing out the lies, regurgitated misrepresentations, general false and malicious BS that you and Pete F spewed. If pointing out the truth is defending Trump, so be it. I never said he was a model person or statesman. And when actual truths were said about him, I didn't deny or even comment on them. I repeated over and over that it was not about Trump for me. But it suited whatever purpose anti-Trumpers had to make it solely about him. He was the shiny object that distracted from the real issues. I tried to defend the truth, not Trump. And I tried to start discussions of the real governmental and constitutional issues that were transforming us into an authoritarian administrative regulatory state instead of a constitutional republic.

Frankly, though I despise the dishonest way, actually the dangerous to our liberties way, of dispatching him, I'm relieved, perhaps prematurely, that it won't be about him anymore, and way more importantly, it can be about how we will be governed.

Pete F has already tried to defend what our high tech information oligarchs, namely Apple, Amazon, and Twitter have so quickly done as soon as it was confirmed that the Dems have total ruling power. The social media giants supported the Dems with huge sums of money and information suppression and as much supportive manipulation of speech as they could before the election. Now that their paid for party has taken control of both branches of Congress and the President, they don't think they have to be shy about their intentions to crush any competition, business or ideological.

Boom, like that, they conspire to shut down Parler, and others, and even the President. This rapid, decisive, and powerful collusion is far more dangerous to the American Experiment in individual freedom than any bogus characterizations of Trump supposedly being a dictator of some sort.

Maybe now, with Trump gone, we can discuss the real transformations occurring in our government and our societal norms.

People underestimate the role of social media in radicalization. This is the main way right wing extremists are radicalized. Extremist media exposure is also one of the most robust predictors of political violence.
This means social media policies and censorship have a quarantining effect. By limiting exposure to the largest audiences, fewer people end up being radicalized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spoken like a true dictator...

ummm...no...they will find a new object for their ire...likely whoever is presumed to be leading the #resistance...because that is wrong

The surest sign of Trump’s unfitness for the presidency is that there is a 100.00% chance he is angrier about losing his Twitter account than he is about Capitol Hill being sacked by his supporters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Traitors View Post

Proud boys


how many poor boys are there?....it seems like there might be 9 or so...and how are they a "white supremacist" organization...the dude they arrested who is suppose to be their leader is Cuban American and self-described as very brown .....WAPO "The leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio"