obama says BLM would have been treated differently if they stormed the capital

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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 your claiming that Trump orchestrated or even suggested all of this, you better have more than conjecture, interpretation, and deceitful imputations of what he said. What he actually said would not have led to any of this, nor was there any suggestion in what he said that would lead to this.

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.

That is supposed to be how it operates. Unfortunately, humans operate it. And some have agendas that may cause them to tweak the process. It's not that they haven't sometimes been found to cheat. There is an ongoing investigation of how they handled the process re Trump.

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.

Has Trump told QAnon what to do? Do the Dems tell Antifa and Black Lives Matter what to do?

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.

They were not going to be able to stop Congress from carrying out election law. The most they could have done is delay it. And nothing Trump said suggested that they should try to stop it. The scheduled rally, in my opinion, was to influence certain Congress people, not to cause rioting.

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.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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

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

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.