Election Aftermath

[byco42]

How's this for moving goalposts? I think Trump could have prevented this and I think he had a Constitutional duty to prevent it if he could.

Can you offer some suggestions as to how? I'm not being obtuse.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Can you offer some suggestions as to how? I'm not being obtuse.

If he didn't say all summer long that the only way they could lose is if it was rigged, then after he lost say it was rigged and his people won't have a country anymore - then it wouldn't have happened.

If it was just the speech the day of, when he said 11,000 words about fighting and not being weak and not following the usual rules mentioning peaceful protest only once as a toss away phrase...maybe you could make an argument he had no idea. But the fact that he only said it once also reads like plausible deniability. Rally after rally he worked people up and his people followed what they were saying online. He should have known and he should have defused it before people got killed.

 

[sggatecl]

C-Span's youtube video, the red dot showing where protestors were first breaking in. 4:28:00 is a good place to start.

C-Span's youtube video, the red dot showing where protestors were first breaking in (rewind a bit for that footage).

 

[Spartanmack]

It seems like history has already showed us political BS will win the day, if after voting that they did have jurisdiction to impeach, members voted not to convict based on their belief that they didn't have jurisdiction.

In this case it?s because of political BS that we have this trial in the first place.

 

[Gulo Blue]

C-Span's youtube video, the red dot showing where protestors were first breaking in. 4:28:00 is a good place to start.

C-Span's youtube video, the red dot showing where protestors were first breaking in (rewind a bit for that footage).

That was helpful. Seems like things could have been worse for Pence.

 

[byco42]

If he didn't say all summer long that the only way they could lose is if it was rigged, then after he lost say it was rigged and his people won't have a country anymore - then it wouldn't have happened.

Will you ascribe the same responsibility of inciting opposition to the elected officials and media who derided Trump his entire term and called for his impeachment consistently within minutes of his swearing on on January 20, 2016?

It would also be easy, I think, to analyze the replies to Trump's election-fraud messaging on social media and trace who was there to those responses. I expect that the Democrats will have done this if I thought about it as a way to offer it as "evidence" to inciting "insurrection." Particular gold would be Trump's response to their responses, if they exist.

If it was just the speech the day of, when he said 11,000 words about fighting and not being weak and not following the usual rules mentioning peaceful protest only once as a toss away phrase...maybe you could make an argument he had no idea. But the fact that he only said it once also reads like plausible deniability. Rally after rally he worked people up and his people followed what they were saying online. He should have known and he should have defused it before people got killed.

I'd like to know how many people who were at the rally then turned violent at the Capitol.

 

[Michchamp]

supposedly like a dozen other people spoke before Trump. I wonder what they said as well?

There needs to be a better accounting of all sides of this story.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Will you ascribe the same responsibility of inciting opposition to the elected officials and media who derided Trump his entire term and called for his impeachment consistently within minutes of his swearing on on January 20, 2016?

Calling for impeachment over the 2016 campaign doesn't seem remotely close to what Trump did. Impeachment is one of our processes and what happened at the Capitol impeded one of our processes.

The scale of things seem so out of whack when you consider Bill Clinton got 45 votes to be removed in the Senate. How is that a high crime or misdemeanor to roughly the same number of Senators as this?

It would also be easy, I think, to analyze the replies to Trump's election-fraud messaging on social media and trace who was there to those responses. I expect that the Democrats will have done this if I thought about it as a way to offer it as "evidence" to inciting "insurrection." Particular gold would be Trump's response to their responses, if they exist.



I'd like to know how many people who were at the rally then turned violent at the Capitol.

I read they showed someone at the Capitol reading Trump's tweet about Mike Pence into a bullhorn.

 

[byco42]

Calling for impeachment over the 2016 campaign doesn't seem remotely close to what Trump did. Impeachment is one of our processes and what happened at the Capitol impeded one of our processes.

Calling for Impeachment on the same day he was inaugurated--that was just for starters.

"Deplorables" "Reprogramming" "Traitors" "White Supremacists" "Fascists" "Nazis" ... the rhetoric directed at people who voted for Trump was scathing. Yet my comment was to either nullify what Trump said on social for several months or to apply what his opposition said for four years as "contributional" to the events of Jan 6. Obviously, I think that neither applies -- the cause of this insurrection has many layers, IMO. As do the summer riots.

The scale of things seem so out of whack when you consider Bill Clinton got 45 votes to be removed in the Senate. How is that a high crime or misdemeanor to roughly the same number of Senators as this?

That's the Impeachment process at work. The infractions are wide ranging and interpretative.

 

[Gulo Blue]

"Deplorables" "Reprogramming" "Traitors" "White Supremacists" "Fascists" "Nazis" ... the rhetoric directed at people who voted for Trump was scathing. Yet my comment was to either nullify what Trump said on social for several months or to apply what his opposition said for four years as "contributional" to the events of Jan 6. Obviously, I think that neither applies -- the cause of this insurrection has many layers, IMO. As do the summer riots.

But most of that is random people on social media, not people that can be impeached. Nobody attacked anybody because Clinton said 'basket of deplorables'. Not leadership and not to the same degree, or with the same persistence as Trump's rallies and tweets. Who are the worst officials? The squad probably. Can I sting together enough of their statements to argue that without them, the stuff in Portland wouldn't have happened? No. I can't.

And if we did a deep dive into the other side of the rhetoric, keep in mind that if it's not improperly generalizing, it might not even be false. The election wasn't stolen, but there are at least a few white supremacists in this country. Equating racial stuff that's been part of this country for ages and keeps flaring up every few decades to people rioting over stopping the steal, which couldn't exists at all until Trump came along, doesn't seem right to me.

 

[Gulo Blue]

People in the riot say they were following Trump's orders.

Have any Antifa rioters said they were following AOC's orders?

 

[Michchamp]

People in the riot say they were following Trump's orders.

Have any Antifa rioters said they were following AOC's orders?

FWIW, I've seen quite a few articles pop up about rioters there being ID'd as FBI informants, including the so-called leader of the "Proud Boys" who is - PLEASE NOTE - not white, so they can't be racist, even if they say and do racist shit.

 

[Spartanmack]

If he didn't say all summer long that the only way they could lose is if it was rigged, then after he lost say it was rigged and his people won't have a country anymore - then it wouldn't have happened.

If it was just the speech the day of, when he said 11,000 words about fighting and not being weak and not following the usual rules mentioning peaceful protest only once as a toss away phrase...maybe you could make an argument he had no idea. But the fact that he only said it once also reads like plausible deniability. Rally after rally he worked people up and his people followed what they were saying online. He should have known and he should have defused it before people got killed.

and rally after rally no one ever rioted before Jan 6. How many times is he supposed to tell people to protest peacefully? It sounds a lot like the white supremacy thing - how many times has the President denounced white supremacy? Literally dozens but he's still asked if he does and hasn't stopped anyone from accusing him of being one and/or pandering to some made up base of white supremacists. If trump emplored people to protest peacefully 100 times it wouldn't have mattered - the riot would have happened and the media and Dems would still be saying he was responsible for inciting it, the 100 reminders to protest peacefully would just be 100 more coded dog whistles.

Conversely, we have multiple examples of some of the people calling his words an incitement to violence - some saying they almost got them killed - actually overtly encouraging riots, unrest and attacks on their opposition. No one is saying they should be charged for what happened all over the country this summer, most notably, none of the media pundits are blaming them for any of it, nor should they.

This is a purely partisan and massively hypocritical political witch hunt.

 

[Spartanmack]

People in the riot say they were following Trump's orders.

Have any Antifa rioters said they were following AOC's orders?

what orders? Seems like a really slippery slope if we're going to start holding people responsible for how someone else (mis)interprets their speech?

Maybe Tom Cruise as Lt. Daniel Kaffee can get Trump on the stand and trick him into admitting he ordered the code red.

 

[tinselwolverine]

FWIW, I've seen quite a few articles pop up about rioters there being ID'd as FBI informants, including the so-called leader of the "Proud Boys" who is - PLEASE NOTE - not white, so they can't be racist, even if they say and do racist shit.

The article indicates that he might have been flipped for a reduced sentence.

 

[Spartanmack]

Calling for impeachment over the 2016 campaign doesn't seem remotely close to what Trump did. Impeachment is one of our processes and what happened at the Capitol impeded one of our processes.

The scale of things seem so out of whack when you consider Bill Clinton got 45 votes to be removed in the Senate. How is that a high crime or misdemeanor to roughly the same number of Senators as this?



I read they showed someone at the Capitol reading Trump's tweet about Mike Pence into a bullhorn.

people rioted during Trump's inauguration in DC and elsewhere - aren't the people who called his win illegitimate and called for his impeachment responsible for those riots?

If you're talking about the current impeachment, they haven't gotten the same number of votes to be removed from office. So far they've only voted on the constitutionality of trying Trump after he's left office. And with Clinton there was no ambiguity or question of his guilt. It was proved and he even admitted that he committed perjury vs Trump who hasn't been proved to have done anything to incite the riot. Right now, it's a matter of a high crime or misdemeanor vs. a politically motivated made up high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[Spartanmack]

FWIW, I've seen quite a few articles pop up about rioters there being ID'd as FBI informants, including the so-called leader of the "Proud Boys" who is - PLEASE NOTE - not white, so they can't be racist, even if they say and do racist shit.

besides holding different political views than you, what racist shit do they say and do?

 

[tinselwolverine]

people rioted during Trump's inauguration in DC and elsewhere - aren't the people who called his win illegitimate and called for his impeachment responsible for those riots?

If you're talking about the current impeachment, they haven't gotten the same number of votes to be removed from office. So far they've only voted on the constitutionality of trying Trump after he's left office. And with Clinton there was no ambiguity or question of his guilt. It was proved and he even admitted that he committed perjury vs Trump who hasn't been proved to have done anything to incite the riot. Right now, it's a matter of a high crime or misdemeanor vs. a politically motivated made up high crime or misdemeanor.

I don?t think he ever used the word perjury himself, not that it really matters. He admitted to ?an inappropriate relationship,? which he had previously denied under oath.

I guess there wasn?t a 2/3 majority of senators who viewed that crime as high enough to amount to a high crime or misdemeanor.

 

[byco42]

People in the riot say they were following Trump's orders.

That in no way indicates that Trump issued any.

Have any Antifa rioters said they were following AOC's orders?

No, they are their own brand of riotous. Unless you mean they were following AOCs orders to stand down, but I am not aware if she gave any such orders.

She did WRITE this, however:

?The thing that critics of activists don?t get is that they tried playing the 'polite language' policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn?t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn?t their full demands.?

?The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that?s the point.?​

So, it seems that both ANTIFA and the Capitol rioters took her advice.

 

[Spartanmack]

But most of that is random people on social media, not people that can be impeached. Nobody attacked anybody because Clinton said 'basket of deplorables'. Not leadership and not to the same degree, or with the same persistence as Trump's rallies and tweets. Who are the worst officials? The squad probably. Can I sting together enough of their statements to argue that without them, the stuff in Portland wouldn't have happened? No. I can't.

And if we did a deep dive into the other side of the rhetoric, keep in mind that if it's not improperly generalizing, it might not even be false. The election wasn't stolen, but there are at least a few white supremacists in this country. Equating racial stuff that's been part of this country for ages and keeps flaring up every few decades to people rioting over stopping the steal, which couldn't exists at all until Trump came along, doesn't seem right to me.

Plenty of people have been attacked because of their conservative beliefs. Steve Scalise was almost murdered for being a Republican, a Trump supporter was murdered by an avowed Antifa member this summer, another fearing for his life attempting to flee an angry mob killed one person and shot another in self defense, Rand Paul was assaulted by his neighbor and put in the hospital, politicos have been doxxed and seen their families threatened by angry mobs, dozens of ordinary citizens have been assaulted for what they believe. But none of that has anything to do with any of the dehumanizing comments and labels put on them by opposition leadership, it's all just random acts of lone wolf violence, but Trump say's "stay strong" and suddenly he's primarily responsible for instigating a coordinated riot at the capitol.

We don't know that the election wasn't stolen. We see a lot more evidence for election fraud than we do for the white supremacist boogey man that's somehow responsible for months of riots, dozens of deaths and billions of dollars in property damage this summer.