Wide spread election fraud 2020

[tomdalton22]

I know. My post said "impeachment and conviction".



The Senate Trial has to conclude by 1200 on January 20. That will not happen. There will be no conviction on Constitutional grounds.

I am in no way an expert on the constitution. I didn't realize that the trial has to conclude before the term is over (which is really stupid). So a president gets immunity if he does something wrong as long as it's at the end of his term? That makes Don all the more dangerous. Maybe they should have used article 25 and just booted him out of office.

 

[Spartanmack]

Personally - and for what it's worth, I know I'm not alone here - I don't see long running, nationwide, and largely peaceful protests against police brutality and unaccountabilityin the same light as a single, violent attempt to storm the US capitol and arrest, kidnap, or possibly even murder (?) sitting elected officials and their families and staffs, but you've made it clear you do.

I wouldn't expect you to see them as the same thing, particularly when you call the long running riots (that continue to this day in Portland), "largely peaceful protests" but label what happened last week as a "single, violent attempt to storm the capitol" and say without evidence it was basically a blood thirsty mod bent on murdering elected officials and their families. Even when it's clear the vast majority of the people there were standing around, waving the US and Gadsden flag and singing the national anthem, it's not remotely surprising you see it that way. Before you try accuse me of defending what happened last week as a protest, I'm not. It was a riot and I'm appalled by it and I think the people who were rioting should be arrested and tried, particularly the ones who assaulted and injured or killed others.

Personally - and for what it's worth - I'm probably not alone here, I think you see it the way you do because you believe the lie that cops and America are inherently, institutionally racist, and that police brutality is a major problem facing people of color. And that a large number of the 70mm Trump voters are heavily armed white supremacists, itching to start a Civil War.

 

[byco42]

I look at a little differently. I think what he did was treasonous. He encouraged them to take over the capitol building. His oath of office is to uphold the constitution. He was not doing that...he was doing the exact opposite.

It's just my opinion, which means nothing

I read the speech, and there's no such encouragement, IMO. Here are some excerpts:

"Our media is not free. It?s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it?s become the enemy of the people. It?s become the enemy of the people. It?s the biggest problem we have in this country. No third world countries would even attempt to do what we caught them doing and you?ll hear about that in just a few minutes. Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It?s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We?re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn?t, that will be a sad day for our country because you?re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.

"After this, we?re going to walk down and I?ll be there with you. We?re going to walk down. We?re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We?re going walk down to the Capitol, and we?re going 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. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong...

"..We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

 

[tomdalton22]

Do you have a quote? I didn't watch the speech nor have I read it, but what I have read indicated he said something like "you should continue your protest at the capitol..." or something like that. It's a pretty big leap to say he encouraged them to take over the capitol and stop the electoral vote count. I'm not surprised these leaps have been taken, given it's exactly what they do every time he opens his mouth to label everything he says a "dog whistle to white supremacists."

According to an article I read, these are some of the damming quotes. When you are the POTUS and telling a bunch of angry nitwits these types of things, you are asking for trouble.

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"

'We are going to the Capitol'

Those are just some quotes. He also said ''Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard''

 

[Gulo Blue]

there are no judges and juries on the internet, so all we have is opinions.

https://twitter.com/USSupremeCourt

 

[Spartanmack]

I read the speech, and there's no such encouragement, IMO. Here are some excerpts:

"Our media is not free. It?s not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech, and it?s become the enemy of the people. It?s become the enemy of the people. It?s the biggest problem we have in this country. No third world countries would even attempt to do what we caught them doing and you?ll hear about that in just a few minutes. Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It?s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We?re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us. If he doesn?t, that will be a sad day for our country because you?re sworn to uphold our constitution. Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.

"After this, we?re going to walk down and I?ll be there with you. We?re going to walk down. We?re going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We?re going walk down to the Capitol, and we?re going 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. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong...

"..We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

That's some treasonous dog whistle stuff there...

 

[Spartanmack]

According to an article I read, these are some of the damming quotes. When you are the POTUS and telling a bunch of angry nitwits these types of things, you are asking for trouble.

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

"If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore"

'We are going to the Capitol'

Those are just some quotes. He also said ''Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard''

I don't see what's so damning about this. The idea that he is both an inept dope, but also some master manipulator playing 4D chess, using seemingly innocuous terms like "peacefully and patriotically..." to instigate his base of white supremacists to commit a violent, armed insurrection, stage a coup and make him dictator for life says more about the people making those accusations (I mean the media, and the Dems, not you) than they do about Trump.

I think these quotes are far less incendiary than the ones I posted earlier from Dems which I also don't think are to blame for the other riots and I definitely don't think Trump is some kind of evil genius puppet master manipulating a bunch of rubes to engineer a violent revolution and become King of America.

 

[byco42]

I am in no way an expert on the constitution. I didn't realize that the trial has to conclude before the term is over (which is really stupid). So a president gets immunity if he does something wrong as long as it's at the end of his term? That makes Don all the more dangerous. Maybe they should have used article 25 and just booted him out of office.

Since, in this case, the Inauguration of a new president has the same effect as impeachment and conviction of the sitting president, with the caveat of being able to hold office again, that's an interesting point you raise. Can he be disqualified from holding office by the subsequent Congress? I don't know. I expect that it will do all it can to attempt that.

 

[tomdalton22]

I don't see what's so damning about this. The idea that he is both an inept dope, but also some master manipulator playing 4D chess, using seemingly innocuous terms like "peacefully and patriotically..." because he knows his base of white supremacists will interpret that as a clear directive to commit violent, armed insurrection and stage a coup and try to make him dictator for life says more about the people making those accusations (I mean the media, and the Dems, not you) than they do about Trump.

I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I think he's MUCH closer to the "inept dope" than the "master manipulator playing 4D chess" (lol).

For me it's a pretty difficult decision between should he be impeached or not. Do I think he meant for those dopes to breach the capitol? no. But I think his irresponsible use of social media during his term, fanning the flames any time he can, playing to his base (which unfortunately includes a small percentage of violent white supremacists) had something to do with what actually happened.

 

[Michchamp]

https://twitter.com/USSupremeCourt

ah touche, ha ha.

 

[Spartanmack]

I agree with a lot of what you have to say. I think he's MUCH closer to the "inept dope" than the "master manipulator playing 4D chess" (lol).

For me it's a pretty difficult decision between should he be impeached or not. Do I think he meant for those dopes to breach the capitol? no. But I think his irresponsible use of social media during his term, fanning the flames any time he can, playing to his base (which unfortunately includes a small percentage of violent white supremacists) had something to do with what actually happened.

maybe he is closer to being an inept dope than an evil genius. Like I said before, I don't think the job is all that hard - I care more about his actions than his words, live or on twitter. I like that he punches back against the Dems and the media. Those people fight dirty and decent, polite Republicans don't stand a chance - guys like Dole, McCain, Romney all got their dicks knocked in the dirt by Dems who fight dirty and have the benefit of the media covering for their tactics.

before COVID 55% of Americans said they were better off under Trump than they were under Obama. Trump renegotiated horrible trade deals here in the west and pushed back against China, he lowered taxes (esp corporate taxes) that spurred investment in the US, he did what he could to secure the border, got us out of the horrible Paris climate accords (and the US still reduced carbon emissions), voided that shitty nuclear deal with Iran and helped win historic peace deals in the middle east, he worked with Dems (celebrities mostly, because no elected Dem could be seen cooperating with him) on prison and criminal justice reform, worked to end the endless wars in the middle east and bring home our troops. I care way more about all of that than the stupid shit he says live or on social media (I never followed him on Twitter or FB, I don't use Instagram and I just closed my Twitter account). He did all that while the opposition worked around the clock on fraudulent investigation after fraudulent investigation to remove him from office and virtually 100% of media coverage of him was negative - also mostly based on lies.

I used to think a lot like you do (based on what I think you're saying, correct me if I'm wrong) - the President should be held to a higher standard, he shouldn't be a serial philanderer, he should rise above the fray, etc, etc and on some level I still do. But I've accepted the reality that no matter how dirty a Democrat is, he/she will always get cover from the media and no matter how decent and polite a Republican is he/she will always be portrayed as evil, racist, incompetent, etc. Until that changes, I'm OK with someone like Trump if he punches back and can accomplish the things he needs to accomplish.

 

[Michchamp]

...label what happened last week as a "single, violent attempt to storm the capitol" and say without evidence it was basically a blood thirsty mod bent on murdering elected officials and their families. ...

You mean, without evidence OTHER than all the live video evidence of property destruction, protestors threatening the police, forcible entry, cops physically attacked, a cop beaten to death on video, photographic evidence of, arrests for firearm violations, at least one arrested with molotov cocktails, and photographs and videos of protestors in military garb carrying zip ties through the capitol, right?

 

[Spartanmack]

You mean, without evidence OTHER than all the live video evidence of property destruction, protestors threatening the police, forcible entry, cops physically attacked, a cop beaten to death on video, photographic evidence of, arrests for firearm violations, at least one arrested with molotov cocktails, and photographs and videos of protestors in military garb carrying zip ties through the capitol, right?

yes, that's what I mean - none of that is evidence that it was a blood thirsty mob bent on murdering elected officials and their families. If that were true, based on the number of armed protestors, it seems to me there would be a lot more than one tragic death of Capitol police or employees and some gun shot wounds - maybe a few cops or capitol employees with gun shot wounds. As far as I know, the only shot fired was the one that killed Ashli Babbit. So again yes, that statement is a completely and totally unsubstantiated hyperbolic accusation.

you said yourself property destruction is just political speech if the owner has enough money to fix the damage. No doubt the federal government can afford to repair some windows and replace some furniture, so who gives a shit - property destruction is protected by the first amendment. You said that, right?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Legal experts say prosecutors can make a strong case for sedition. The statute is pretty clear: It's sedition if two or more conspire not just to "overthrow, put down, or to destroy" the government by force, but also "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States."

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/9562...on-cases-against-capitol-rioters-will-it-work


Not being a legal expert, I understand that force was used to break in and an important function of Congress was delayed, but how do you establish which individuals conspired with that intent?

 

[byco42]

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/9562...on-cases-against-capitol-rioters-will-it-work


Not being a legal expert, I understand that force was used to break in and an important function of Congress was delayed, but how do you establish which individuals conspired with that intent?

I wonder if NPR would consider these actions as seditious. Link Link

 

[zyxt9]

I wonder if NPR would consider these actions as seditious. Link Link

Nope, those are just traditional Marxist anti-government tactics used throughout history to overthrow governments. Move along, nothing to see. Especially the attempt to barricade federal employees inside a federal building and burn the building that they are in. Luckily we had all of the Democrats, MSM, and Social Media groups identifying these individuals, banning the likes of AOC who has recorded videos and put them on Social Media stating that these people were justified in their actions, and there should be more of the same if their demands are not met. Instead of being banned from the internet and investigated for (pick a charge levied against Trump), she gets to have an even larger online profile.

***NOTE: I do not agree with any of the rioting or support of the rioting...between AOC and Trump, AOC's words were actually at times clearly stating the riots were ok and need to increase if the people do not get their way. Trump's words were more ambiguous, yet still led to the events in DC - and he is a complete ass - so whatever happens to him I am good with...just asking for equivalence be applied to those on the Left.

 

[zyxt9]

IF...Big Tech were to actually apply the same rules and consequences against Left and Right inflammatory instigations that lead to riots, maybe...just maybe...I would be ok with it, since it would be levied equally. The problem, and where these idiots on the Right feel justified in their actions, is that the penalties are always more harsh for those on the Right. If there was balance, they would not be rioting.

In fairness, if there was Blind and Equal justice throughout America, Floyd would never have even been placed in handcuffs, let alone murdered. So I am fully aware Justice is not Blind and Equal in far too many situations. That does not mean we should not strive for that to be reality in each and every successive day.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I wonder if NPR would consider these actions as seditious. Link Link

I wouldn't worry about NPR, it's not their task force.

 

[Spartanmack]

I wonder if NPR would consider these actions as seditious. Link Link

NPR would probably make the case that the federal courthouse in Portland was attacked by ANTIFA which is an ideology, not an organization. The actions were a spontaneous reaction by unconnected individuals with a sense of civic and moral duty to combat fascists, not an organized or coordinated attack.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I guess, other than the courthouse attack not being justification for anything because it was also criminal activity, if we need to compare both protests and the extremes and find differences, I think the attack on the Capitol probably clears different legal hurdles because it disrupted the US government at the highest level, which clearly directly relates to the language in the Constitution. I would also point to the motivation as a difference between these crime, a historic and uneven lack of police accountability is real, the idea that the election was stolen is a lie. And proportionality matters. There were an estimated 15-24 million protesters involved in just the the George Floyd marches. I don't know how many Stop the Steal protesters there were, and maybe we'll see more soon, but even if I just accept the recent number of 700 injured police, wherever that came from, there were 116 police injured at the Capitol. 116 injuries every 2 hours would take 12 hours to hit 700 injuries. So this Storm the Capitol march was really intense compared to the BLM marches generally speaking. I wonder what the worst BLM-related event was.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_storming_of_the_United_States_Capitol