Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So why didn't he do something about it his first year in office? Either he is a lazy cheb, incompetent, or lying through his teeth. Or conceivably, all three.

let's face it, it's a bullshit argument he used twice, firstly because he was afraid he would lose, then because he did actually lose  

Actually thrice! https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/03/donald-trump-ted-cruz-stole-iowa-caucuses-new-election

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 26.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2330

  • rmgill

    1635

  • DKTanker

    1552

  • Jeff

    1533

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, MiloMorai said:

Was there any Intel briefs to Trump about what was happening/could happen before Jan 6?

If there were, that type of thing leaks at warp speed.  Given the lack of leaks I think we can cautiously conclude the answer to your question might be, 'no'.  If so, the more important question is, was there any briefs to Nancy Pelosi before Jan 6th?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Angrybk said:

There you go. And this vast conspiracy somehow neglected to completely shaft the Republican party in both houses. What an oversight. It's like faking the moon landing on the Burbank back lot.

Really, I've no desire to get irritable about it, buts it's got more holes in it than my socks, and unlike them it can't stand up on its own.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Well, yeah, but a pilot crashing an airliner because he felt like doing some loopings and corkscrews in the sky (and then somehow surviving it) without better reason than "I just wanted to demonstrate that it could be done, and I would have gotten away with it too had it not been for a handful of other problems for which I bear no responsibility" ... well, such a pilot would still lose his license.

The FAR's are a neutral standard. 

6 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Trump could have chosen different words than he did in the weeks prior to Jan 6th. The way he did it can only be summarized as "play with fire" -

Sorry....no, this is NOT a neutral standard. IS Bernie Sanders responsible for the Congressional Baseball shooting? Bernie used hyperbolic and inflammatory language. The shooter thought it was reason enough. 

Anytime a some says something and a crazy person hears it goes and does something crazy we're gonna blame a 3rd party? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I can't help but notice the deep irony, that this is also the defense that some people use to say that the term "jihad" is often used to just mean a (purely philosophical/mental/faith based) struggle, not armed resistance or terrorism.

Not to derail this thread. Not to call this equivalent.

But the resemblance is striking.

Umm. Ever hear someone say they're gonna kill their kids for doing X or Y? Did they actually kill their kids? 

What is hyperbole?

https://www.ereadingworksheets.com/figurative-language/figurative-language-examples/hyperbole-examples/#:~:text=Hyperbole is a figurative language technique where exaggeration,means “over%2C” and “bole” which means “to throw.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I'm not a fan of former President Trump. Having said that it is a big jump from, he questioned the election, to he incited the riot.  Did I miss something, did he say go attack the capital and break in? 

Don't give me he said "fight" the results or similar. Because you can  find plenty of footage of various politicians saying fight for against various issues.

 

 

I don't think he incited the riot in the criminal court of justice sense of the word.

I do think the riot would never have happened if he hadn't had a sustained campaign indicating that the election was rigged, even before the election occurred. He also specifically spent money advertising a "stop the steal" protest for Jan 6th after the EC was already confirmed.

Thought experiment: Trump admits defeat on November 10th after the election was called (EDIT: or even December 14th once the EC occurs and there is no legal mechanism for changing the result). Does the riot happen?

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, glenn239 said:

If there were, that type of thing leaks at warp speed.  Given the lack of leaks I think we can cautiously conclude the answer to your question might be, 'no'.  If so, the more important question is, was there any briefs to Nancy Pelosi before Jan 6th?

Intel about the likelihood of Qanon shamans storming the Capital Building was almost non existent (there was that one guy in Norfolk I guess). Another massive intel failure on our part given the social media storm leading up to it. I would be very surprised if any politician got any briefing whatsoever. One DHS intern with a Facebook account could have predicted it. Totally insane. 

Edited by Angrybk
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rmgill said:

IS Bernie Sanders responsible for the Congressional Baseball shooting? Bernie used hyperbolic and inflammatory language. The shooter thought it was reason enough.

Classic whataboutism.

I'd say Sanders bears political responsibility too for the shooting. Not criminal responsibility, but that's a really low standard ("What I did was not strictly illegal!" isn't such a great defense in the court of public opinion). Just like all the intersectionalist critical race theory marxists bear political responsibility for the BLM riots.

But if they are guilty, so is Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I'm not a fan of former President Trump. Having said that it is a big jump from, he questioned the election, to he incited the riot.  Did I miss something, did he say go attack the capital and break in? 

Don't give me he said "fight" the results or similar. Because you can  find plenty of footage of various politicians saying fight for against various issues.

 

 

Time to indict Bernie Sanders for the attempted mass murder of GOP congressional members. 

Time to indict Maxine Waters, Kamala Harris, "The Squad" et al, for inciting the riots, burning, looting, killings, and occupation of several court houses and police stations, not to mention the siege and attempted burning of a federal court house.

Time to indict every single law maker and media type that foments hatred and violence by suggesting GOP lawmakers want to starve children, poison people, and push grandparents off cliffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Josh said:

People focus on the speech given that day. That's not the sole issue; the issue is that Trump had a sustained campaign challenging the legitimacy of the election that heavily predated the election. He called into question three million votes in the election he actually won.

Your Freedom of Speech limitations strongly differentiate between words said in the heat of the moment from those that are written down. In the latter case, I believe that indirectly encouraging people to storm the Capitol would be protected speech, because people are not in a position to do that in the heat of the moment when they read about it in a book (or on the media). If Trump had been outside the Capitol in front of a crowd of rowdy protestors and had said the same thing, then he'd probably not be protected. Thus, the only leverage is that he said something that might be interpreted as incitement at a time where it could be considered to be in the heat of the moment, even though it is still a stretch to claim that what he said could be interpreted as an instruction to storm the building.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

Classic whataboutism.

Not at all. It's a question of is the standard a standard? If it's not held consistenatly then it's a big issue.

If you feel that party X is held to a precise standard and party Y is allowed to do what ever then go ahead and do so
 

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'd say Sanders bears political responsibility too for the shooting. Not criminal responsibility, but that's a really low standard ("What I did was not strictly illegal!" isn't such a great defense in the court of public opinion). Just like all the intersectionalist critical race theory marxists bear political responsibility for the BLM riots.

Except people are casting around terms like Treason, insurrection, rebellion and expect some criminal charges. And Brandenburg has 2 tests. All three must apply. For those BLM riots, when you've had multiples of them, it brings to mind that the 2nd part of the test is that asks if: 

  • The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

As to Trump's statmeents to go and protest pecefully it fails on face the first test. 
 

  • The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

But if they are guilty, so is Trump.
 

Have you read ANY of Brandenburg yet? It appears not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

To be fair, they were probably really busy monitoring BLM, so we need to cut them some slack. :)

Those people will be out of a job today, as the left loves their own violent mob.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about criminal responsibility, but political responsibility. That's my only point. I don't think that Trump bears responsibility in the sense that he should go to jail for it, but both he and Sanders, (and Waters, and other politicians) using hyperbolic speech to degenerate the quality of public debate all bear political responsibility for their rhetoric.

The "universal standard" rests with the voters. The Dems aren't voting out Waters and Sanders, and the Republicans aren't ousting Trump. Congratulations: A universal standard, if at the lowest common denominator level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not talking about criminal responsibility, but political responsibility. That's my only point. I don't think that Trump bears responsibility in the sense that he should go to jail for it, but both he and Sanders, (and Waters, and other politicians) using hyperbolic speech to degenerate the quality of public debate all bear political responsibility for their rhetoric.

The "universal standard" rests with the voters. The Dems aren't voting out Waters and Sanders, and the Republicans aren't ousting Trump. Congratulations: A universal standard, if at the lowest common denominator level.

 

Yes, Trump's rhetoric was very irresponsible. No, he was not calling for violence, a coup or a rebellion.  But people on the left live in a fantasy world in which everything was wonderful until the evil orange man came down his golden escalator and broke societal civility.

They have completely forgotten their own destructive rhetoric for the last few decades, which would fill many, many books.

Here is a quick example of what they said about McCain and Ryan, some of the two most milquetoast people to ever run for office:

This is how you get Trump.

 

By the way, on one side you have the invasion of the capitol, which was immediately and overwhelmingly denounced by everyone on the right  (even Alex Jones was outside the capitol yelling at people not to go in)

On the other side you have the systematic destruction of America's cities that took place during much of 2020 (and had been going on for a long time before that).  How many prominent democrats denounced it?  Not many.  There are many examples of elected democrats justifying such violence.

Both sides react to political violence from their own side very differently.

Edited by Mikel2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I'm not talking about criminal responsibility, but political responsibility. That's my only point.

Well, vote him out of office then!

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

 

I don't think that Trump bears responsibility in the sense that he should go to jail for it, but both he and Sanders, (and Waters, and other politicians) using hyperbolic speech to degenerate the quality of public debate all bear political responsibility for their rhetoric.

Ok, that's a neutral standard. Care to express some thoughts why the others in the DNC are still in office? Are they gonna be held politically responsible? 

3 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The "universal standard" rests with the voters. The Dems aren't voting out Waters and Sanders, and the Republicans aren't ousting Trump. Congratulations: A universal standard, if at the lowest common denominator level.

So, clearly, it's ok to donate money to the bail funds of BLM and Antifa for rioting over the course of a year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

And more so, it's not terrorism when the left is trying to burn down court houses, or churches, or businesses. 

Which leftist leader will describe one of those days where there side tried to burn down a federal court house as the worst day of their life like Alex Jones did? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, rmgill said:

So, clearly, it's ok to donate money to the bail funds of BLM and Antifa for rioting over the course of a year.  

I find it reprehensible and would never vote for such people, but then again that's a decision that the US population must make. I'm 6,000 kilometers east of Boston, so I can literally just comment from the sideline. I do recognize similar patterns of arguments across the aisle, but unfortunately this perpective seems harder to recognize when you're in the middle of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rmgill said:

And more so, it's not terrorism when the left is trying to burn down court houses, or churches, or businesses. 

Which leftist leader will describe one of those days where there side tried to burn down a federal court house as the worst day of their life like Alex Jones did? 

No Leftist leader would say such a thing, never about acts they perceive as furthering the leftist cause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I find it reprehensible and would never vote for such people, but then again that's a decision that the US population must make. I'm 6,000 kilometers east of Boston, so I can literally just comment from the sideline. I do recognize similar patterns of arguments across the aisle, but unfortunately this perpective seems harder to recognize when you're in the middle of it.

The simple fact is that the leading Republicans were all aghast at what happened on January 6. You can see this in the responses. 

Conversely, our sitting VP was supportive of the rioters that attempted to break into the White house and were throwing Molotov cocktails at the security staff. They didn't break into the White House because the perimeter is already hardened and has been so for more than 50 years with many attempts to get in by malcontents already. That support extended to a bail fund that released rioters multiple times. 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bail-fund-kamala-harris-thomas-moseley

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...