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

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by spence

I think that was at a statehouse and not the Capital.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Capitol building late December, it happened before, they likely had help again. How many pardons will Trump be giving out as charges mount for those committing trespass, crimes and murder in one instance. I don’t think you can pardon stupidity for the guy sitting in Pelosis office, stealing her mail and the bragging about it in an interview the next day.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Love the security camera videos coming out showing Republican representatives opening the doors and waving the nuts in. When the election is done, votes counted over and over, 50+ court cases dismissed without cause, it’s time to think about country first and yet these true Patriots just feel like nope we wants to stir up the pot just a bit more.

republicans like tom cotton and dan crenshaw agree with you 100%.

here’s the difference between the 2 sides. could you please point me to influential democrats in DC, who this summer, called for the liberal
rioters to stop, and who called out the liberal politicians and liberals in the media, to stop instigating them by lying about police?

i’ll wait for you to tell me who the democrats are who did that.

almost nobody on the right is defending what happened in dc ( it’s indefensible). almost nobody on the left called out the summer
riots which left 19 dead.

and if inflammatory language and enciing riots is bad, why is Al Sharpton legitimized and embraced by the democrat party? or is inciting a riot only problematic when republicans do it?

do you really not see any hypocrisy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

almost nobody on the right is defending what happened in dc ( it’s indefensible). almost nobody on the left called out the summer
riots which left 19 dead.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is correct, nobody is defending or making excuses for those that committed criminal acts...if these were democrats, celebrities and wealthy leftists would be bailing them out of jail so they won't miss the next planned event

I haven't heard anyone claim the officer who shot the woman in the neck was sexist or a misogynist or denounce the Capitol police as "systemically sexist"....

it's awful that she was shot and killed but she put herself is a situation that could end badly for her and it did....

the media is struggling to remind us that 5 people "WERE KILLED"...but one died of a stroke and another from a heart attack...which is unfortunate but I guess they count these deaths like covid now.....the woman who was shot....there is another who they say was trampled but there is very little info and then the police officer who died which is tragic, at least to those of us who support the police.....

at least these folks took their grievances to the government...

we know the left likes to air their grievances by destroying neighborhoods and the property of others and threatening and intimidating people in their neighborhoods and businesses and on their way to work.... which is actually NOT how it is supposed to work....

[Pete F.]

“I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump–I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

“I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump–I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Innuendo

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Innuendo

New: FBI now reports in a bulletin "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January,”

Clearly the proper move here is to surrender to these folks and not hold Trump and his enablers accountable for inciting a murderous riot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New: FBI now reports in a bulletin "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January,”

Clearly the proper move here is to surrender to these folks and not hold Trump and his enablers accountable for inciting a murderous riot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The massive gathering of Trump supporters at the Capitol was "mostly peaceful." The vast majority of them weren't aware of the rioting. It is reported that some who were up close shouted against it.

The narrative is that Trump "incited" the riot. You went further in your interpretation that he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he wanted it--you even connected riotous "sounding" words to him which he had not spoken nor implied (your usual innuendo). Quite the opposite, he spoke of, and expected, a demonstration that would be peaceful and lawful. He was "happy" that so many showed up to give powerful and visible support to his cause.

"Clearly," if the FBI knows about such plans that they report, they should arrest any that are breaking the law, and prepare themselves and the proper agencies to be ready to quell any riots.

It's not necessary for you to insinuate that Trump and his supporters are murderous, riotous thugs. Such language fans any existing embers into actual flames.

Maybe, as the adage goes, it takes one to know one. Maybe your the one inciting future riots.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New: FBI now reports in a bulletin "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January,”

Clearly the proper move here is to surrender to these folks and not hold Trump and his enablers accountable for inciting a murderous riot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive gathering of Trump supporters at the Capitol was "mostly peaceful." The vast majority of them weren't aware of the rioting. It is reported that some who were up close shouted against it.

The narrative is that Trump "incited" the riot. You went further in your interpretation that he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he wanted it--you even connected riotous "sounding" words to him which he had not spoken nor implied (your usual innuendo). Quite the opposite, he spoke of, and expected, a demonstration that would be peaceful and lawful. He was "happy" that so many showed up to give powerful and visible support to his cause.

"Clearly," if the FBI knows about such plans that they report, they should arrest any that are breaking the law, and prepare themselves and the proper agencies to be ready to quell any riots.
Clearly the reason the FBI announced this imminent threat is to alert authorities

It's not necessary for you to insinuate that Trump and his supporters are murderous, riotous thugs. Such language fans any existing embers into actual flames.

I'll do another post that shows the murderous, riotous thugs since you apparently missed that

Maybe, as the adage goes, it takes one to know one. Maybe your the one inciting future riots.
Waiting for the politicians representing the wackos (their constituents) now planning armed protests across the country to get on TV and call for unity

Let’s begin redefining this: If people are armed, it’s not a protest. America doesn’t need or support or condone armed “protests.”

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.

[Pete F.]

You know, I understand whites are angry but it’s such a shame that when they riot, they just destroy their own neighborhood!

You can try and normalize Trump's behavior all you want, he is headed for the dustbin of history, to be listed as the worst president ever.

Trump organized and incited this riot. His supporters proceeded to kill a Capitol Police Officer. This may not have occurred on 5th Avenue, but Trump is responsible for this homicide. He bragged that he could get away with this exact thing. Will we let him?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Clearly the reason the FBI announced this imminent threat is to alert authorities

Of course. As the FBI has done many other times.
Before Trump.

I'll do another post that shows the murderous, riotous thugs since you apparently missed that

I didn't miss them. How could I? It's all the media shows and talks about. Apparently, you missed the many thousands, the overwhelming majority, of demonstrators who were not riotous thugs. Like the ones who didn't riot and create mayhem in the many demonstrations of the past year in which rioting occurred (and many in which far more destruction occurred than this one). And because most people didn't cause mayhem in those demonstrations, even though a great deal of chaos and damage was done, the media kindly referred to them as "mostly peaceful." So I used the same meme of "mostly peaceful" in regard to this one. But not so with the media. According to them, this (the whole demonstration) was orchestrated to be a violent revolution of some kind. Which is obviously, if you're truthful, not what occurred.

No the media and its anti-Trump persuasion, insisted this was a deliberate insurrection orchestrated by Trump to overthrow the government. That's ridiculous on the face of it. There were not enough actual rioters nor enough weapons to do that. And though some bomb stuff was found, it strangely was planted but not used as would have been in a real insurrection.

I know you consider Trump stupid, but it's way too stupid for anyone who has the ability to move crowds the way he does to plot something as ineffective as the puny thing that happened which could only result in doing more harm to him and his cause than any actual harm to the government.

It seemed to me to be the action of some hotheads and/or possibly some anti-Trump and antigovernment infiltrators specifically to create chaos, distrust, and/or harm to Trump. But it certainly was fuel for those who want to get rid of Trump, even Republicans, to call it a Trump directed insurrection or such. And they jumped on it big time.

"Never let an emergency go to waste."

Let’s begin redefining this: If people are armed, it’s not a protest. America doesn’t need or support or condone armed “protests.”

Yes, "redefining" is a major component of Marxist, leftist, and Progressive modus operandi. Pre-redefinition, being armed was not a crime nor was a peaceful protest meant to be restricted to only those who left their arms at home. Being armed, carrying your weapon in the public space, was not a sign of nor necessarily a predisposition toward violence. It was, in fact, protection from and a suppression of violence.

Your redefinition, of course, fits right in with the Progressive narrative that people don't need guns. And only small capacity single shot per squeeze guns permitted for sport and hunting and possible protection (against multiple attackers as well). If at all. The ultimate goal being the elimination of such nonsense as the Second Amendment.

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.

This is the perfect formula for a Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive power structure to label any opposition (as terrorist for instance), marginalize it, cancel it. And it is the exact formula, as you finally admit, that is taking place. It is not a formula for preserving a free society. Rather it's one for shutting it down.
For instituting an authoritarian regime.

It's what is claimed that "Conservatives" want to do against Muslims or Black people or anyone they supposedly hate. And you do hate Trump. It's kinda strange that our media tech giants want to deplatform Trump and Trumpists, but not the CCP nor other anti-liberty regimes. Well . . . not so strange, they have something fundamentally in common with them.

A liberty minded person should view what you prescribe as frightening, to say the least.

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.

No maybe about it, other than it's not merely that you're sounding too harsh . . . you're sounding like a tyrant . . . which includes the various constant lying and insinuating, and conjecturing, and labeling that has led up to your tyrannical conclusion.

But I do appreciate that you finally admit and define what you're doing. For all those who wondered why you would not respond with logical, rational argument, actual conversation, but would just ignore, and repeat, no matter how your lies were debunked, now you can all see the true, fanatical, authoritarian disposition driving Pete's unreasonable, one-sided, relentless rhetoric.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive gathering of Trump supporters at the Capitol was "mostly peaceful." The vast majority of them weren't aware of the rioting. It is reported that some who were up close shouted against it.

The narrative is that Trump "incited" the riot. You went further in your interpretation that he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he wanted it--you even connected riotous "sounding" words to him which he had not spoken nor implied (your usual innuendo). Quite the opposite, he spoke of, and expected, a demonstration that would be peaceful and lawful. He was "happy" that so many showed up to give powerful and visible support to his cause.

"Clearly," if the FBI knows about such plans that they report, they should arrest any that are breaking the law, and prepare themselves and the proper agencies to be ready to quell any riots.

It's not necessary for you to insinuate that Trump and his supporters are murderous, riotous thugs. Such language fans any existing embers into actual flames.

Maybe, as the adage goes, it takes one to know one. Maybe your the one inciting future riots.

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.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No maybe about it, other than it's not merely that you're sounding too harsh . . . you're sounding like a tyrant . . . which includes the various constant lying and insinuating, and conjecturing, and labeling that has led up to your tyrannical conclusion.

OK, Mr Alinsky

But I do appreciate that you finally admit and define what you're doing. For all those who wondered why you would not respond with logical, rational argument, actual conversation, but would just ignore, and repeat, no matter how your lies were debunked, now you can all see the true, fanatical, authoritarian disposition driving Pete's unreasonable, one-sided, relentless rhetoric.

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.

[Jim in CT]

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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....

[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!

[Pete F.]

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.

[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.

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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.

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.

[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 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.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

[Sea Dangles]

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

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

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.

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?

[Got Stripers]

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.

[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