|
Post by aufan on Jul 8, 2023 19:33:29 GMT
Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. OED
Don’t see nothing wrong with using it to describe the insurrection on January 6th.
Nor do I think the word matters that much, or that any reasonable person should defend the actions of the rioters or the speech by Trump. That is my very simple take.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 8, 2023 20:58:57 GMT
That definition doesn’t work, because it would include virtually every protest against the government.
Trump told them to make their Voices heard. He didn’t tell anyone to break into anything. Words matter.
The “I” word matters a lot because of the severe legal punishment associated with it. Including, being able to legally exclude someone convicted of it to ever run for office.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Jul 8, 2023 23:53:01 GMT
Trump told them to stop the steal. Fight like hell, and if you don’t, you won’t have a country anymore. What does that mean to you?
Protesting is fine. Destructive and violent protesting is not. Destructive and violent protesting to stop a democratic transition of power seems clear cut insurrection or rebellion.
Trump incited this action (incite: encourage or stir up). As you pointed out, it wasn’t pre-organized, but rather incited by a speech. Would it have occurred sans the Trump speech/rally? And anyone who ‘sets foot on’ is a part of it.
Can you acknowledge that Trump’s speech was wildly irresponsible especially for a sitting president? If not, would you then acknowledge that the rioters were not only justified, but didn’t take it far enough? If the country was literally being illegal stolen, doesn’t that justify an insurrection?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Jul 9, 2023 16:34:45 GMT
Trump told them to stop the steal. Fight like hell, and if you don’t, you won’t have a country anymore. What does that mean to you? What that meant to me was: Those of us who agree with Trump policies need to realize what we're up against. We cannot do what we've done in the past. We can't just sit back and say, "oh well, we'll get em next time". We are going to have to engage... to FIGHT, if we are going to have any chance to keep the kind of country that we've had. Trump was telling us what we all truly believed: The 2020 Presidential election was stolen. At that time, it wasn't terribly clear how, but we all felt it. Now, we know a lot more. It wasn't stolen with voting machines that don't tabulate correctly. It was stolen by one party taking extreme advantage of the pandemic to run the most massive "vote harvesting" system our country has ever seen. One side harvested (often, illegally), the other side didn't. We cannot let that happen again. It did, in 2022, but not quite as much. The election was also stolen by collusion between the FBI and Big Tech social media, suppressing the truth of the Hunter laptop evidence and censoring the speech of conservatives. I don't think even Trump was stupid enough to truly believe the vote was going to be changed on Jan 6. He was speaking toward the future, to those of us who didn't go to DC that day. We are not going to be able to sit by complacently and get fairness in elections back. We're going to have to "fight like hell". Protesting is fine. Destructive and violent protesting is not. Destructive and violent protesting to stop a democratic transition of power seems clear cut insurrection or rebellion. I fully agree that protesting is fine as long as it's not violent and destructive. In 2020, we went through an entire year of protesting that, despite being characterized by the media as 'mostly peaceful', also included a great deal of violence and destruction. We saw government buildings occupied, police stations burned, court houses burned, churches burned, downtown business districts destroyed. Do you even remember the violent demonstrations in DC when Trump was first elected? No serious person would truly believe the rag-tag group of protesters that breached the capital on Jan 6 was going to stop the transfer of power. There was ZERO chance of that. It was a mob of angry people. People who had a RIGHT to be angry. A mob that got temporarily out of the control of the capital security guards. Something that should never have been allowed to happen. But conveniently, it did. NOT when critical votes were happening. When evidence of voting irregularity was being presented. If they were trying to "stop they vote", they really timed it poorly. Would it have occurred sans the Trump speech/rally? And anyone who ‘sets foot on’ is a part of it. No.. because there wouldn't have been as many people there. But, are you saying Trump supporters have no right to gather? To rally? To show their displeasure? The VAST majority of Trump supporters in DC that day didn't go anywhere near the Capital. I know a several of them personally. The ones who did should be punished. But, I see no reason to punish them more severely that the protesters who destroyed so much of our country earlier that year. Can you acknowledge that Trump’s speech was wildly irresponsible especially for a sitting president? If not, would you then acknowledge that the rioters were not only justified, but didn’t take it far enough? If the country was literally being illegal stolen, doesn’t that justify an insurrection? Trump's speech would be wildly irresponsible for a typical, establishment loser to do. But that's not why Trump was elected. He was sent there because many people were SICK of the old-style, traditional politician. If you want something different, you shouldn't be unhappy when you get it. Of course, I do not think rioters didn't go far enough. We're not yet at the point where physical violence is required. But eventually, if people have no faith in the electoral process, violence will be seen by many as the last resort. Those of us who care about our country need to find ways to work together to keep from getting to that point. So far, I still haven't seen a lot of that.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Jul 9, 2023 20:55:04 GMT
At not one point leading up to the insurrection was the rhetoric that the election was stolen via ballot harvesting. The rhetoric was that it was literally stolen, that Joe Biden received fake votes:
"And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace." - Donald Trump
But you hit the nail on the head. The premise is that the election was stolen. That is the fact believed by Trump supporters. The proof is that Trump didn't win. The "how" changes daily, weekly and monthly. Everyone has since backed off on the rhetoric that it was literally stolen because that is completely false. The rhetoric leading up to the insurrection and during the rally was that the election was literally stolen by giving Joe Biden fake votes.
Not once have I defended any other violent protest, including the ones you mentioned, nor is this discussion about those protests.
The fact that they couldn't have reasonably stopped the transfer of power does not mean they weren't trying. Donald Trump literally told them to "stop the steal" and "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The rhetoric was to stop the transfer of power, if Mike Pence doesn't "do the right thing" (to not certify the election and send it back to the states).
Just because a bunch of idiots are trying to do something unfeasible, does not mean they weren't trying to do it. Nor that they shouldn't be punished because it was unfeasible. Imaging applying this logic to any other crime: Someone tries to rob a bank, but they did it poorly, mistimed when the safe was open, and they're really just mad because the bank "stole" money with over-draft fees. Just send them home because they weren't really robbing a bank, just expressing frustration with the modern banking system. Laughable logic.
We agree that the events of the Capitol would not have happened without Trump. Therefore it is more than reasonable to claim that Trump incited (defined as encouraged or stir up) the events at the Capitol.
This does not excuse wildly irresponsible behavior. He was sent to Washington to "drain the swamp". He utterly failed and in some respects and didn't even try in others. This was the desperate cry of a failure to blame someone else for his shortcomings. Excusing his speech because of this is a completely irrational stance. That because we don't like current politics, it is acceptable for a standing president to incite a riot at the building where he is losing power.
You are attributing arguments to Trump that he did not make, excusing his false and dangerous rhetoric that the election literally being stolen by fake votes for Biden. You are excusing his unacceptable and dangerous speech not because of the content, but because you don't like the current state of politics. You are defending the severity of crimes of the rioters not because of their actions or intent, but because they were idiots not likely to succeed.
I disagree with all of these points. Trump clearly said the election was stolen with fake votes for Joe Biden. Trump clearly said that the crowd must stop the steal if Pence does not. The crowd clearly went to the Capitol and breached it on the day the election was being confirmed. Saying that Trump incited an insurrection is an accurate statement, and you are wiggling around this fact with indefensible arguments about intent, likelihood of success, and personal distaste for politics.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 10, 2023 13:24:04 GMT
At not one point leading up to the insurrection was the rhetoric that the election was stolen via ballot harvesting. The rhetoric was that it was literally stolen, that Joe Biden received fake votes: "And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace." - Donald Trump But you hit the nail on the head. The premise is that the election was stolen. That is the fact believed by Trump supporters. The proof is that Trump didn't win. The "how" changes daily, weekly and monthly. Everyone has since backed off on the rhetoric that it was literally stolen because that is completely false. The rhetoric leading up to the insurrection and during the rally was that the election was literally stolen by giving Joe Biden fake votes. Not once have I defended any other violent protest, including the ones you mentioned, nor is this discussion about those protests. The fact that they couldn't have reasonably stopped the transfer of power does not mean they weren't trying. Donald Trump literally told them to "stop the steal" and "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The rhetoric was to stop the transfer of power, if Mike Pence doesn't "do the right thing" (to not certify the election and send it back to the states). Just because a bunch of idiots are trying to do something unfeasible, does not mean they weren't trying to do it. Nor that they shouldn't be punished because it was unfeasible. Imaging applying this logic to any other crime: Someone tries to rob a bank, but they did it poorly, mistimed when the safe was open, and they're really just mad because the bank "stole" money with over-draft fees. Just send them home because they weren't really robbing a bank, just expressing frustration with the modern banking system. Laughable logic. We agree that the events of the Capitol would not have happened without Trump. Therefore it is more than reasonable to claim that Trump incited (defined as encouraged or stir up) the events at the Capitol. This does not excuse wildly irresponsible behavior. He was sent to Washington to "drain the swamp". He utterly failed and in some respects and didn't even try in others. This was the desperate cry of a failure to blame someone else for his shortcomings. Excusing his speech because of this is a completely irrational stance. That because we don't like current politics, it is acceptable for a standing president to incite a riot at the building where he is losing power. You are attributing arguments to Trump that he did not make, excusing his false and dangerous rhetoric that the election literally being stolen by fake votes for Biden. You are excusing his unacceptable and dangerous speech not because of the content, but because you don't like the current state of politics. You are defending the severity of crimes of the rioters not because of their actions or intent, but because they were idiots not likely to succeed. I disagree with all of these points. Trump clearly said the election was stolen with fake votes for Joe Biden. Trump clearly said that the crowd must stop the steal if Pence does not. The crowd clearly went to the Capitol and breached it on the day the election was being confirmed. Saying that Trump incited an insurrection is an accurate statement, and you are wiggling around this fact with indefensible arguments about intent, likelihood of success, and personal distaste for politics. Absolutely this^^^^. Biden won 3 states by only a 44,000 vote margin, easily within the realm of ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is much easier to do when you have mass mail-outs of ballots. This election was absolutely "stolen", or "rigged" or whatever nomenclature you want to place on it. Again, the Time magazine article lays out, hiding in plain sight, how they did this...under the guise of COVID, legal shenanigans (commonly referred to as "lawfare") took place to allow changes to voting procedures at the state level by circumventing the legislative process. It was a bi-partisan effort to stop Trump from being re-elected via their shadow campaign. Of course, all of these efforts were framed as "saving our Democracy". These groups ranged from the AFL-CIO to the US Chamber of Commerce (a big proponent of open borders and the low-wage workers that follow). The media did its part of provide cover at every opportunity, spiking certain truthful stories and promoting questionable other stories. Social media did likewise. There is a reason France stopped mail-in voting many years ago - it made it to easy to cheat. A good system of internal controls cannot be maintained. 2020 was easily the least controlled election we've had in history. It was not massive fraud, like Bevo correctly stated, it was not rigged servers in Germany that double-counted Dem votes, or deleted R votes or other horseshit It's the nuance between votes and ballots. 81 million votes, - no. 81 million ballots - yep. Ballot harvesting in deep blue areas boosted voter "turnout" just enough to move the needle in key states. No need for all of the speculation - they told us what they did.
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Jul 11, 2023 0:55:25 GMT
At not one point leading up to the insurrection was the rhetoric that the election was stolen via ballot harvesting. The rhetoric was that it was literally stolen, that Joe Biden received fake votes: "And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take third-world countries. Just take a look. Take third-world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country. It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace." - Donald Trump But you hit the nail on the head. The premise is that the election was stolen. That is the fact believed by Trump supporters. The proof is that Trump didn't win. The "how" changes daily, weekly and monthly. Everyone has since backed off on the rhetoric that it was literally stolen because that is completely false. The rhetoric leading up to the insurrection and during the rally was that the election was literally stolen by giving Joe Biden fake votes. Not once have I defended any other violent protest, including the ones you mentioned, nor is this discussion about those protests. The fact that they couldn't have reasonably stopped the transfer of power does not mean they weren't trying. Donald Trump literally told them to "stop the steal" and "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." The rhetoric was to stop the transfer of power, if Mike Pence doesn't "do the right thing" (to not certify the election and send it back to the states). Just because a bunch of idiots are trying to do something unfeasible, does not mean they weren't trying to do it. Nor that they shouldn't be punished because it was unfeasible. Imaging applying this logic to any other crime: Someone tries to rob a bank, but they did it poorly, mistimed when the safe was open, and they're really just mad because the bank "stole" money with over-draft fees. Just send them home because they weren't really robbing a bank, just expressing frustration with the modern banking system. Laughable logic. We agree that the events of the Capitol would not have happened without Trump. Therefore it is more than reasonable to claim that Trump incited (defined as encouraged or stir up) the events at the Capitol. This does not excuse wildly irresponsible behavior. He was sent to Washington to "drain the swamp". He utterly failed and in some respects and didn't even try in others. This was the desperate cry of a failure to blame someone else for his shortcomings. Excusing his speech because of this is a completely irrational stance. That because we don't like current politics, it is acceptable for a standing president to incite a riot at the building where he is losing power. You are attributing arguments to Trump that he did not make, excusing his false and dangerous rhetoric that the election literally being stolen by fake votes for Biden. You are excusing his unacceptable and dangerous speech not because of the content, but because you don't like the current state of politics. You are defending the severity of crimes of the rioters not because of their actions or intent, but because they were idiots not likely to succeed. I disagree with all of these points. Trump clearly said the election was stolen with fake votes for Joe Biden. Trump clearly said that the crowd must stop the steal if Pence does not. The crowd clearly went to the Capitol and breached it on the day the election was being confirmed. Saying that Trump incited an insurrection is an accurate statement, and you are wiggling around this fact with indefensible arguments about intent, likelihood of success, and personal distaste for politics. Absolutely this^^^^. Biden won 3 states by only a 44,000 vote margin, easily within the realm of ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is much easier to do when you have mass mail-outs of ballots. This election was absolutely "stolen", or "rigged" or whatever nomenclature you want to place on it. Again, the Time magazine article lays out, hiding in plain sight, how they did this...under the guise of COVID, legal shenanigans (commonly referred to as "lawfare") took place to allow changes to voting procedures at the state level by circumventing the legislative process. It was a bi-partisan effort to stop Trump from being re-elected via their shadow campaign. Of course, all of these efforts were framed as "saving our Democracy". These groups ranged from the AFL-CIO to the US Chamber of Commerce (a big proponent of open borders and the low-wage workers that follow). The media did its part of provide cover at every opportunity, spiking certain truthful stories and promoting questionable other stories. Social media did likewise. There is a reason France stopped mail-in voting many years ago - it made it to easy to cheat. A good system of internal controls cannot be maintained. 2020 was easily the least controlled election we've had in history. It was not massive fraud, like Bevo correctly stated, it was not rigged servers in Germany that double-counted Dem votes, or deleted R votes or other horseshit It's the nuance between votes and ballots. 81 million votes, - no. 81 million ballots - yep. Ballot harvesting in deep blue areas boosted voter "turnout" just enough to move the needle in key states. No need for all of the speculation - they told us what they did. I wonder what the statistical probability of the 5 states that delayed election results all switching to Biden was...
They could have at least tried to make it believable lol
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 11, 2023 14:45:24 GMT
Absolutely this^^^^. Biden won 3 states by only a 44,000 vote margin, easily within the realm of ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is much easier to do when you have mass mail-outs of ballots. This election was absolutely "stolen", or "rigged" or whatever nomenclature you want to place on it. Again, the Time magazine article lays out, hiding in plain sight, how they did this...under the guise of COVID, legal shenanigans (commonly referred to as "lawfare") took place to allow changes to voting procedures at the state level by circumventing the legislative process. It was a bi-partisan effort to stop Trump from being re-elected via their shadow campaign. Of course, all of these efforts were framed as "saving our Democracy". These groups ranged from the AFL-CIO to the US Chamber of Commerce (a big proponent of open borders and the low-wage workers that follow). The media did its part of provide cover at every opportunity, spiking certain truthful stories and promoting questionable other stories. Social media did likewise. There is a reason France stopped mail-in voting many years ago - it made it to easy to cheat. A good system of internal controls cannot be maintained. 2020 was easily the least controlled election we've had in history. It was not massive fraud, like Bevo correctly stated, it was not rigged servers in Germany that double-counted Dem votes, or deleted R votes or other horseshit It's the nuance between votes and ballots. 81 million votes, - no. 81 million ballots - yep. Ballot harvesting in deep blue areas boosted voter "turnout" just enough to move the needle in key states. No need for all of the speculation - they told us what they did. I wonder what the statistical probability of the 5 states that delayed election results all switching to Biden was...
They could have at least tried to make it believable lol
There were many statistical anomalies among the election data. Many of them several standard deviations from the norm. Please note that these are also referred to by some as "conspiracy theories". Like they say in military intelligence, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Jul 11, 2023 18:53:46 GMT
I wonder what the statistical probability of the 5 states that delayed election results all switching to Biden was...
They could have at least tried to make it believable lol
There were many statistical anomalies among the election data. Many of them several standard deviations from the norm. Please note that these are also referred to by some as "conspiracy theories". Like they say in military intelligence, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action. You are still talking about the article about statistical anomalies that was corrected, which was off by a factor of around 14 quadrillion?
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 11, 2023 18:59:07 GMT
DeSantis’ Problem Isn’t Trump, It’s That Dems Rigged The Last Election
From the Federalist:
Recall that 2020 was unlike any election in American history. One need not declare that it was “stolen” to admit that it was obviously rigged. After all, the people and institutions that rigged it have freely admitted what they did. They suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, censored what Americans could say on social media, introduced unprecedented changes to our voting system under the pretext of pandemic precautions, and poured hundreds of millions of dollars into putatively nonpartisan local election offices through Mark Zuckerberg-connected nonprofits for the sole purpose of turning out Democrat voters in swing states.
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Jul 11, 2023 19:30:55 GMT
Ah yes, the republican problem is that it was made easier for people to participate in our democracy.
Generally, I agree. The majority of the country does not want republicans voted in. They’ve lost all but 1 of the last 8 popular votes for president. The house is over represented with republicans due to gerrymandering, and the senate republicans represent a minority of Americans but not a minority of the senate.
Republicans need to change their platform to get votes, not whine that the other side gets more votes.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 13, 2023 14:54:30 GMT
Ah yes, the republican problem is that it was made easier for people to participate in our democracy.
Generally, I agree. The majority of the country does not want republicans voted in. They’ve lost all but 1 of the last 8 popular votes for president. The house is over represented with republicans due to gerrymandering, and the senate republicans represent a minority of Americans but not a minority of the senate. Republicans need to change their platform to get votes, not whine that the other side gets more votes. You misspelled cheating.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Jul 13, 2023 14:55:07 GMT
WaPo, NYTimes, Bloomberg, and Rolling Stone are now not referring to Jan 6 as an insurrection, or even a riot, because they are now defending Ray Epps
Now Jan 6 was 'rallies,' 'demonstrations,' and 'protests'.
|
|