Because Trump 2.0

[NickM]

46 minutes ago, R011 said:

Ann exaggeration even given the presence of some scattered individuals with vaguely violent intent.

How many times has a Left wing mob invaded a Congressional hearing room to intimidate the members of the committee, attacked a federal courthouse, declared part of a city to be independent, or illegally demonstrated outside a Supreme Court judges home to intimidate him?

Oh come now Dave, we all know these are 'mostly peaceful' attempts at intimidation secession and federal courthouse attacks

[DKTanker]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Weasel words. 

If the state pressures you to break into someone's home then they've suborned actions that are illegal. PERIOD. Their pressure is as much a form of force and you know it. 

This is, quite clearly conspiracy to deprive Citizens of Civil rights. That's a felony. Party A pressures Party B to do something for Party A and TO Party C (citizens). 

Bullshit.  The Party is righteous and beyond reproach, their ends always justifying their means.

[rmgill]

If you ask them…but the DNC has no internal critics. One Party. One purpose. 

[Mr King]

15 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 DNC has no internal critics. 

That's because internal critics are dealt with

 

[Josh]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

As someone on NavWeaps said, they're concerned about Trump's danger to democracy, yet somehow, Trump didn't destroy democracy lat time he had the chance.

Only due to lack of talent, not lack of interest.

[Josh]

9 hours ago, R011 said:

Exercising legal options to protest the results of an election are a manifestation of democracy.

And where was the attack on democracy in the previous four years of his administration?

Trying to make the votes of entire states go away is quite another thing. And we know Trump wanted to do this because he has constantly berated Pence for not doing it. There’s no hidden agenda: Trump wanted Pence to throw out the EC votes from certain states (or alternatively accept the “alternate” electoral voters). We know this to be true because to this day Trump condemns Pence for not doing it. We also know Trump was not especially opposed to the mob hanging Pence, again by his own public statements. This isn’t some smoke filled room or SPECTER esque plot - Trump has made it clear he wanted Peace to throw out votes from some states. He has said that he is disappointed with pence not so repeatedly.

Edited August 29 by Josh

[R011]

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

Only due to lack of talent, not lack of interest.

And lack of trying, but mostly lack of trying.

[R011]

27 minutes ago, Josh said:

Trying to make the votes of entire states go away is quite another thing. And we know Trump wanted to do this because he has constantly berated Pence for not doing it. There’s no hidden agenda: Trump wanted Pence to throw out the EC votes from certain states (or alternatively accept the “alternate” electoral voters). We know this to be true because to this day Trump condemns Pence for not doing it. We also know Trump was not especially opposed to the mob hanging Pence, again by his own public statements. This isn’t some smoke filled room or SPECTER esque plot - Trump has made it clear he wanted Peace to throw out votes from some states. He has said that he is disappointed with pence not so repeatedly.

At worst, it meant that he may have misunderstood the authority of the VP in this situation.  If the election and electors were fraudulent, as Trump apparently believes, then this was a chance to make it right.

I do recall that despite all the speculation from Trump's opponents here and elsewhere, when his term was up, he left the White House and gave up his authority without incident.

[Ivanhoe]

Loss of cellphone service.

 

 

 

[Ssnake]

Well, at least the FBI had the pressure washer ready to cleanse the roof, and managed to have the shooter cremated at the earliest opportunity, before the completion of the autopsy.

Collecting evidence is so overrated.

[seahawk]

Democrats want to control the elections. They know Trump won last time.

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, R011 said:

Ann exaggeration even given the presence of some scattered individuals with vaguely violent intent.

How many times has a Left wing mob invaded a Congressional hearing room to intimidate the members of the committee, attacked a federal courthouse, declared part of a city to be independent, or illegally demonstrated outside a Supreme Court judges home to intimidate him?

Is it? Some of them came with coiled rope, some with cable ties to tie hands. I would not classify them all as having the exact same motivation, whcih is likely why the whole thing fell apart. But the basic aims of the majority were very clear, stop the certification of Biden's victory. Even the ones rioting were happy to admit that.

How many of them did it at the very moment when congress was going to certify the Government was about to change? One cannot say that this was not unprecidented, because it clearly was. I dont think Washington has seen anything like that, since the British turned up and stole the Presidents dinner (before torching the table it was sat on).

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

Well, at least the FBI had the pressure washer ready to cleanse the roof, and managed to have the shooter cremated at the earliest opportunity, before the completion of the autopsy.

Collecting evidence is so overrated.

They were probably worried it would turn out  he was shot with a Mannlicher Carcano....

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, rmgill said:

You mean aside from the time your lot burned DC in 1814? Not exactly Confederate flags. 

We have another incident where Richard Lawrence, a British immigrant tried to murder Andrew Jackson. Lawrence thought he was Richard the III and that the US owned him money. 

There's the incident where an abolitionists senator, Thomas Hart Benton, drew a pistol on the floor of the senate and threatened to murder a fellow senator. 

In 1861 a mob tried to break into the capitol to disrupt the count of the election. General Winfield Scott, in command of the capitol security force stopped the mob. 

There's the shooting of William Taulbee by Charles Kincaid in 1890. 

There was a bomb planted in the Senateby Eric Muenter in 1915. 

Then there was Marlin Kemmerer who tried to shoot and bomb people in the senate. He was persuded against doing so by several bystanders. 

There's the 1954 United States Capitol shooting. By pro Puerto Rican Nationalists. 28 were killed. Two days later they tried to assassinate President Truman. 

The weather underground planted a bomb in the Senate in 1971. 

in 1983 we had Israel Rubinowits who tried to set off an incendiary device in congress. He was wanting world hunger to addressed. 

Then there's the communist 1983 United States Senate bombing. 

There a many more smaller incidents and the J6 incident. But two sets of flag waving commies. 2 Sets of flag waving Brits. Lots of incidents over other issues, insanity and of course abolition of slavery. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_violent_incidents_at_the_United_States_Capitol 

Admittedly, we don't have the UK's storied history of violent resolutions to the transition of power. How many civil wars and wars of succession has the UK had since Parliament's formation? Perhaps we should depose and execute our head of state? You've got a King Charles again, show us how that's done? 

These are all very fascinating and I thank you for them, but can you relate an incident when the recognition by congress that the Government will change because of an electoral result has been thwarted (albeit temporarily) by either terrorist action, or a mob? That you have to reach as far back as the Royal Marines night out on the town in Washington is instructive of how unusual this is. You havent had anything close to this since the Civil war.

Actually, I think you look back in history, its remarkable how LITTLE there has been a violent transition of power in Britain. Lets see, we had the war of the roses, when there was no parliament to speak of worth a damn. Just basic game of thrones stuff. Then we had the English civil war, which I will note, the newly colonized Americans were siding with Parliament. Many of you came over and fought on Parliaments side, so we will take it as read the right side won. Then there was the Glorious revolution, when the Government didnt change but the King did. And then the asassination of Pm Spencer Perceval in 1812, and.... thats it.

So thats precisely twice in British history, nearly 400 years ago, the Government changed, or was attempted to be changed by armed force in the chamber. Three if you count the German bomb that wrecked the house of Commons (though parliament continued in the Guildhall). And thats your comparison, 'ah well you do it too, so perhaps you shouldnt criticise?' Seriously?

[rmgill]

You all are aware that state elector votes have been discarded previously by the senate, right? 

[Stuart Galbraith]

After they were run out of the chamber by guys carrying confederate flags and waving nooses?

[Stefan Fredriksson]

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

Democrats want to control the elections. They know Trump won last time.

Exactly! Question is, will Trump be the first US president to serve 3 consecutive terms. I hope, since no one in history previously has used such stable genius to utter such big words.

[Stargrunt6]

GWB staffers back Kamala

https://nitter.privacydev.net/simonateba/status/1828771467934228609#m

 

[17thfabn]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Actually, I think you look back in history, its remarkable how LITTLE there has been a violent transition of power in Britain. Lets see, we had the war of the roses, when there was no parliament to speak of worth a damn. Just basic game of thrones stuff. Then we had the English civil war, which I will note, the newly colonized Americans were siding with Parliament. Many of you came over and fought on Parliaments side, so we will take it as read the right side won. Then there was the Glorious revolution, when the Government didnt change but the King did. And then the asassination of Pm Spencer Perceval in 1812, and.... thats it.

I've never heard anything about Colonial American participation in the English Civil War.  The population of the 13 Colonies was small, perhaps 50,000 at the time of the English Civil War. And this included women, children and slaves. So less than 20,000 fighting age males. And they had plenty to do in the colonies. I suspect that Colonial participation was limited to a few upper class persons. 

I'd imagine most people in the colonies in the 1640's  had little knowledge of what was going on in England. 

Edited August 29 by 17thfabn

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I've never heard anything about Colonial American participation in the English Civil War.  The population of the 13 Colonies was small, perhaps 50,000 at the time of the English Civil War. And this included women, children and slaves. So less than 20,000 fighting age males. And they had plenty to do in the colonies. I suspect that Colonial participation was limited to a few upper class persons. 

 I wouldnt say it was massive, just that they did join in on the Parliamentarian side, and they were present. Which because they have never been talked about before, I found fairly astonishing. When you think about it, there was a good reason for that. Many of the leading lights of Parliament were Puritans.

I admit, it might be a somewhat simplistic understanding of it. Virginia, perhaps not surprisingly, seems to have supported Charles I. Chesapeake seems to have supported Parliament and Charles I!

https://americanhistorypodcast.net/the-english-civil-war-1-america-in-1642/

There is a secondary story to that. When King Charles II gained the throne, he started an extensive effort to track down all those who signed his fathers death warrant (to the extent of digging up oliver cromwell and desecrating his corpse). That extended to North America where several fled, and resulted in many Americans hiding them. Which perhaps could be seen as the first start of the split between American colonists and the English crown.

[urbanoid]

17 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

How many times in American history has a lynch mob wwaving Confederate flags gets into the Senate floor, looking for a vice president to string up?

Perhaps this happens every 4 years, in which case I'm making too much of it.

At this point why would one even mind Confederate flags?

[17thfabn]

43 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

https://americanhistorypodcast.net/the-english-civil-war-1-america-in-1642/

There is a secondary story to that. When King Charles II gained the throne, he started an extensive effort to track down all those who signed his fathers death warrant (to the extent of digging up oliver cromwell and desecrating his corpse).

Two things I've never understood about British history:

Why if the British decided if they needed a king, why they picked one of the Stuarts, seeing how much trouble they had caused. There were times where a new royal line was established in the past. If they were going to go with a Stuart, why they didn't pass a law saying they were going to be a figure head, Parliament was supreme. 

Why QE II named her eldest son Charles with the horrible history of that name for British royalty.  And why Chuckie didn't change his name when he assumed the throne. A king Arthur or Alfred would be nice.

[Ssnake]

He could have picked an awe-inspiring name like "Bloodfeast The Abominable" and demand daily sacrifices, but noooo...

[sunday]

24 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

Why if the British decided if they needed a king, why they picked one of the Stuarts, seeing how much trouble they had caused.

Well, they were on the brink of have a Hapsburg one, if only Mary Tudor had a son by Phillip II. That would have resulted in a dynastic union of Spain, Portugal, England, Netherlands, etc.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

At this point why would one even mind Confederate flags?

Because they're as racist as the Flag of St George now?