Post New

Aleaniled

Just to be 100% clear for all those "we're not so divided after all!"
people: when leftists say "elites" they mean "wealthy corporations who
have near-complete control over all aspects of american life and act to
protect their perpetual profits" and when conservatives say "elites"
they mean "anyone who has a degree".

and when conservatives say "elites"
they mean "anyone who has a degree".

No we don't.
liberals want to swap control "over all aspects of american life" to the government. Conservatives don't want ANYONE having control "over all aspects of american life".

Conservatives don't want ANYONE having control "over all aspects of american life".

You do say that, but that isn't what happens IRL. We've seen what parts of you do with voting to gain and retain power, and inhibit people's freedom with religion tainted laws that restrict reproductive rights to the extreme. Now women are having trouble getting good natal medical care. Pregnancy deaths are up 50% in Texas, and we weren't all that good in the first place. Much of the Evangelicals do seem to want control over all aspects of American life - I think that's why Carter broke with them.

You inhibit good border control because fearless leader wants it as an issue to run on. A good chunk of you seem to want white only voting and hate that there was a n+g+er President.

You told and still tell outrageous lies about election voting and assisted in a failed self coup on the government. You seem to have little respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. You don't care enough about kids to entertain any restrictions on guns, even mild suggestions such as locking them up at home. You do allow red flag laws in places (Florida) and they seem to help.

And there's more. I'm sure common one could list much more than I can.

Dope channeling Rush Limbaugh: "liberals want to swap control "over all aspects of american life" to the government."</i

"Conservatives don't want ANYONE having control "over all aspects of american life"..... unless you're a woman, in which case it's okay if you get pregnant to become septic and/or bleed out in a hospital parking lot thanks to Trump's abortion bans.

Conservatives don't want ANYONE having control

Just my point of view, but today’s Republicans are NOT conservatives. Not even close.

The party of fiscal conservatism has created the vast majority of our deficits.

They do not respect our institutions.

They don’t believe in law and order having nominated, and supporting, a 34 count felon and adjudicated rapist to run for President of the United States (try wrapping you head around that).

They are armed insurrectionists.

Their family values are nominating a man to run for governor of North Carolina who likes to post really weird stuff on a porn site. And most Republicans continue to support him knowing this.

They want to use government to control women’s healthcare, what books you can read, what religion is represented in schools, what is taught in schools (like slavery had some good outcomes), who gets to vote, how voter suppression is applied, how private corporations apply HR policies, etc, etc, etc.

They block gun safety and prioritize ensuring that anyone can have a gun (except Hunter Biden) at the expense of our children’s lives.

I can think of lots and lots of adjectives to describe today’s Republicans, but conservative isn’t one of them.

They are armed insurrectionists.

Whole litany of disinformation in this post, but this one stands out.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/b...

Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to “do whatever it takes” to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.

You may take heart in the political damage the democrats did. The actual truth? That never mattered, and never does to the democrat party. A party that does more harm to the United States than an external enemy ever has.

They want to use government to control women’s healthcare, what books you can read, what religion is represented in schools, what is taught in schools (like slavery had some good outcomes), who gets to vote, how voter suppression is applied, how private corporations apply HR policies, etc, etc, etc.

100%!
About that controlling women's healthcare thing...
The Red State of Texas has one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, they completely control women's bodies and their lives.
Under Texas law, abortions are prohibited in almost all cases, including rape and incest, and are allowed only to save the life of the pregnant person.
Texas is among the 9 states with total abortion bans that lack exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas has had 26,313 rape-caused pregnancies during the 16 months after implementing a near-total abortion ban following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

This is your heartless/brainless Republican Party, folks. They’ll force a ten-year-old to give birth to her stepfather’s rape-baby, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll tell you who you can marry, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll tell you what books you can read, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll add $8 TRILLION to the national debt in 4 years. $8 TRILLION that you and your kids will have to pay back, with interest, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll prevent you and your family from getting healthcare, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll weaken labor protections and union rights, which is why folks in red states earn less than folks in blue states, and tell you that's freedom! The sweet freedom to be poor! MAGA!

And on and on...Double facepalm.

https://abc13.com/texas-abortion-law-no-exceptions...

But other transcripts gathered by Loudermilk during his subcommittee’s ongoing probe of Jan. 6 security failures show civilian leadership at the Pentagon admittedly openly they would not comply with Trump’s wishes, with some saying they did not like the optics of armed soldiers or Guardsmen roaming the Capitol with weapons during what was supposed to be a peaceful transition of power.

“There was absolutely -- there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period,” Miller told the inspector general during his March 2021 interview.

Miller said officials instead used an interagency process to devise an alternative plan that would put some DC National Guard troops on the ground in the nation’s capitol to direct traffic but not to guard the Capitol, a plan that District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser suggested.

Genius, that not guard the capitol thing.

according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.

Hmmm. Who was in charge of the Pentagon at that time?

Whole litany of disinformation in this post, but this one stands out.

Really.

The undisputed FACT remains that the President of the United States sat on his oversized buttocks watching TV for over 2 hours while an armed MAGA insurrection attempt took place. And he did nothing but watch TV.

Trump was Commander In Chief (highest military rank there is) and did not call one person during the insurrection attempt to have the National Guard (or anyone else) to take control of the Capital building.

Trump just watched it on TV, hoping the insurrection would be successful. That ain’t conservative.

If you have a problem with any of the other litany of information, just let me know. Happy to help.


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/17/trump-jan...

Michael Brooks, the senior enlisted leader of the D.C. guard at the time of the riot, and Brigadier Gen. Aaron Dean, the adjutant general of the D.C. guard at the time, told House Administration Committee staffers that if Trump had reached out that day — which, by all accounts, he did not — he might have helped cut through the chaos amid a tangle of conflicting advice and miscommunication.

Who was in charge of the Pentagon at that time?

The inmates who were running the asylum by refusing orders.

The inmates who were running the asylum by refusing orders.

Huh?

The inmates who were running the asylum by refusing orders.

You mean you were running it Dope? No wonder... :)

So he gave a preemptive order to keep the maga mob under control after he stokes them to insurrection?!? And the pentagon is to blame for not enforcing his preemptive order?!?

Do you ever get dizzy?

The undisputed FACT remains that the President of the United States sat on his oversized buttocks watching TV for over 2 hours while an armed MAGA insurrection attempt took place. And he did nothing but watch TV.

The mob wasn't armed, so your facts are off.
Obviously, Trump's orders weren't followed.

hoping the insurrection would be successful.

There was no insurrection. I'm sorry if that disturbs your programming, but a bunch of goobers starting a riot isn't how one would overthrow the United States government. What, did you think that if a bunch of idiots went to the Capitol that Trump would just be President after that? Get real.

Just because you guys hear it on your news networks and parrot it here, doesn't make any of it factual.

There was no insurrection.

There were definitely insurrectionist elements in that crowd. That they were backing a cockamamie plan cooked up by Roger Stone makes no difference.

Dope1: The mob wasn't armed, so your facts are off.

What now?

But a review of the federal charges against the alleged rioters shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. An additional suspect also allegedly planted pipe bombs by the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican parties the night before the riot and remains at large.

They also carried knives, batons, and chemical sprays, including bear spray. The Justice Department said 122 of the people who have been charged in connection to the riot “have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.”


Also...

The full picture of how many among the crowd were armed before the riot occurred is unclear, but court records, trial testimony and accounts from police officers and rioters have supplied growing evidence that multiple people brought firearms to Washington for Jan. 6, 2021. Six men were arrested that day for having guns in the vicinity of the U.S. Capitol, and a seventh who arrived after the riot ended was arrested the following day. Despite some instances in which alerts about people with guns turned out to be false alarms, accounts from police officers and rioters indicate that many firearms were spotted on Jan. 6 but were not seized as law enforcement focused more on defending the Capitol than on arresting gun-law violators.

Wrong, as usual.

Dope1: There was no insurrection.

Well, lessee.

A violent attempt to illegally seize control of the powers of government by using force to try to keep the loser of the 2020 election in power, blocking its transfer to the rightful winner sure sounds like an insurrection.


https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capit...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/05/politics/fact-check...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/07/08...

NPR?!? CNN?!? The WaPo?!?

Cite real sources like OAN you blue pill swilling commie.

What now?

When someone says "armed insurrection" and means it in the sense of "with the intent of overthrowing the US government" - as you people do - then that's going to require more than signpoles and pepper spray.

LOL at the false equivalence, though. Thanks!

When someone says "armed insurrection" and means it in the sense of "with the intent of overthrowing the US government" - as you people do - then that's going to require more than signpoles and pepper spray.

Why? We were literally one Mike Pence away from the plan being successful. Had the mob of insurrectionists scared Pence into giving in to the plan, our system of governing would have been overthrown.

You don't need guns to overthrow a government. Sure, they can help, but they aren't required.

--Peter

We were literally one Mike Pence away from the plan being successful. Had the mob of insurrectionists scared Pence into giving in to the plan, our system of governing would have been overthrown.

Or in lieu of scaring Pence into giving in (which I think they realized wasn't going to happen), they could have killed him, as they were chanting to do. Or was that just more of that famous Trumpian/Republican sense of humor kicking in? Ha, ha.

Why? We were literally one Mike Pence away from the plan being successful. Had the mob of insurrectionists scared Pence into giving in to the plan, our system of governing would have been overthrown.

---------

Absolutely delusional. There was no way that the rag tag group of rioters, even if they killed Pence, that they were going to take over the US government. Pence is dead, the rioters are in the capitol, Trumps rides in and says I am your leader. Do you actually think the rest of the country would just shrug and say OK? Absolutely delusional.

Absolutely delusional. There was no way that the rag tag group of rioters, even if they killed Pence, that they were going to take over the US government. Pence is dead, the rioters are in the capitol, Trumps rides in and says I am your leader. Do you actually think the rest of the country would just shrug and say OK? Absolutely delusional.

Hey, not so fast. Remember - this armed mob of armed insurrectionists had pepper spray and signs they were using as clubs!

Massive firepower, there. Totally enough to overthrow the US Government.

Hey, not so fast. Remember - this armed mob of armed insurrectionists had pepper spray and signs they were using as clubs!

From Wikipedia:

Within 36 hours, five people died: one was shot by Capitol Police, another died of a drug overdose, and three died of natural causes, including a police officer. Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack killed themselves within seven months.

You know, just legitimate political discourse.

For a cult.

You know, just legitimate political discourse. - AW

----------------

No, it was not legitimate political discourse. However, the belief that we were close to losing our democracy to these so-called "insurrectionists", even if they did manage to kill Mike Pence, is pure nonsense.

However, the belief that we were close to losing our democracy to these so-called "insurrectionists", even if they did manage to kill Mike Pence, is pure nonsense.

I don't have that belief. It's my understanding that Pence never had the authority to reject or accept any new slates of electors. He had a ceremonial function with no authority, so that never would've worked. I'm not sure of the process, but I think the Supreme Court would've ruled that way. That whole scheme was concocted by Roger Stone out of thin air it seems.

However, there were people there who believed to various degrees their presence at the Jan 6 event would help Trump retain the Presidency. The presence of false electoral slates is proof that there was a scheme devised to help Trump retain power against the will of the people. It doesn't matter that some of the people were unaware of the entirety of the scheme or how implausible it was for it to be considered an insurrection and a failed self coup.

Absolutely delusional. There was no way that the rag tag group of rioters, even if they killed Pence, that they were going to take over the US government. Pence is dead, the rioters are in the capitol, Trumps rides in and says I am your leader. Do you actually think the rest of the country would just shrug and say OK? Absolutely delusional.

Of course it would have failed; that doesn’t mean they didn’t mean to do it. A lot of stupid insurrections are put down for various reasons: they don’t truly have the will of the people behind them, or they are badly formed and executed, or they don’t have the right resources, or the empire strikes back, and so on.

To use Adolph here without invoking Godwin’s law, he tried to overthrow the German government with the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” in 1923. It was a rag-tag bunch of misfits who thought they were starting a revolution that would sweep the countryside. Didn’t happen, of course. And we often see the same absurd though process every time we hear of a bunch of racists who want to go out and kill black people (or other minorities), hoping to start a “race war”. By contrast, the Russian Revolution was, in fact, started by a rag tag bunch of misfits - and the peasants and other malcontents *did* follow.

Here’s what was intended: To keep Trump in power, even though he lost the election - both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. That is the very definition of an “insurrection.”

pence probably would have done something against the transfer of power had he any real authority.
in a move reminiscent of trump himself, pence decided against symbolic disruption serving someone else at the cost of his own humiliation among peers.

it was only after pence adhered to normal protocol came the 'hang' chants, so it also uncertain how he would have acted with a priori knowledge of the crowd's intent against him personally. i guess god was busy that day.

No, it was not legitimate political discourse. However, the belief that we were close to losing our democracy to these so-called "insurrectionists", even if they did manage to kill Mike Pence, is pure nonsense.

Mike,

In 2020, 139 out of 221 House Republicans refused to certify the results of the Electoral College. In addition, 8 out of 51 Republican Senators openly supported the House Representatives to refuse to certify the results of the Electoral college.

While there have been small protest votes in the past, this is unprecedented in American history.

What is “pure nonsense” is the fact that so many Republicans still don’t see the facts that are right before their very eyes.

If you support Trump you are supporting a traitor to American democracy who fomented a violent insurrection against our country.


https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-TRUMP/LAWMAKE...

Do you actually think the rest of the country would just shrug and say OK? Absolutely delusional.

Hey, not so fast. Remember - this armed mob of armed insurrectionists had pepper spray and signs they were using as clubs!

How cute.

Dope and MiniDope feeding each other set up lines like it's tag team wrestling.

Over it.

>>No, it was not legitimate political discourse. However, the belief that we were close to losing our democracy to these so-called "insurrectionists", even if they did manage to kill Mike Pence, is pure nonsense.<<

Mike,

In 2020, 139 out of 221 House Republicans refused to certify the results of the Electoral College. In addition, 8 out of 51 Republican Senators openly supported the House Representatives to refuse to certify the results of the Electoral college.

While there have been small protest votes in the past, this is unprecedented in American history.

What is “pure nonsense” is the fact that so many Republicans still don’t see the facts that are right before their very eyes.

If you support Trump you are supporting a traitor to American democracy who fomented a violent insurrection against our country. - AW

---------------------

You are responding about J6 elements that I never mentioned in my post and never called nonsense. Maybe you are doing that on purpose to change the subject or maybe you did not understand what I was calling nonsense. Here is the belief that I called nonsense and I stand by it. "Literally", absolutely delusional.

We were literally one Mike Pence away from the plan being successful. Had the mob of insurrectionists scared Pence into giving in to the plan, our system of governing would have been overthrown.

Lapsody at least stated clearly he did not have this belief. The rest of you apparently do believe we were that close since your "rebuttal' concerned a different topic, one that I did not mention.

And we owe Mike Pence a lot. For one thing, making it clear that what Trump was trying to do was an unconstitutional power grab by Trump. And I think Trump didn't issue a blanket pardon because he was advised it would used as evidence against him. Elements of these people wanted to at least zip tie Pence and other members of Congress. Because of Pence we had no furtherance of the drama while waiting for a Supreme Court ruling and no members of Congress held hostage, that's worth a lot to me.

How cute.

Dope and MiniDope feeding each other set up lines like it's tag team wrestling.

Over it. - sano

------------

OK, you don't want to address the question, fine with me.

But the question remains, "do you believe that we literally were about to lose our democracy as a result of the J6 "insurrection?" If so, I would like to hear your speculation about how that occurs.

It's January 7, Mike Pence is dead, the insurrectionists are barricaded in the capitol. Trump wakes up at the Whitehouse, has a nice breakfast, then he..... <fill in the roadmap that leads to Trump becoming a dictator>

The rest of you apparently do believe we were that close since your "rebuttal' concerned a different topic, one that I did not mention.

If a person escapes his kidnappers on the day of the kidnapping, or after 2 days of captivity, or a month, or a year, or is killed by the kidnappers.... it was a kidnapping.

Whether the insurrectionists managed to halt the legitimate electoral process for a day or a week or full term, it would still be an insurrection.

Whether the insurrectionists managed to halt the legitimate electoral process for a day or a week or full term, it would still be an insurrection. - sano

-------------

Still clinging to a different topic, I see.

The question you are avoiding is "Were we close to losing our democracy?

OK, you don't want to address the question, fine with me.

Nonsense. This discussion has been repeated numerous times on this board.

You and your team leader repeatedly attempt to whitewash Trump's, and his J6 insurrection mob's, attempted insurrection by arguing that because it failed it's much ado about nothing.

Such whitewashing efforts are rightly rejected because there's ample video and witness testimony confirming what Trump did and did not do, and what his mob did.

As of January this year, "3 years later, Jan. 6 by the numbers: More than 1,200 charged, more than 460 imprisoned for role in Capitol attack

Prosecutors have secured more than 718 guilty pleas.

213 pleaded to felonies that include assaults on federal officers, obstructing law enforcement and seditious conspiracy."

IIRC, the Brooks Brother insurrection in Florida resulted in the loser of the election being installed as POTUS. There is therefore precedent for shenanigans resulting in overturning the will of the people.

fd

From Wikipedia:

WOW! Wikipedia!

Now *there's* the source to end all sources.

The question you are avoiding is "Were we close to losing our democracy?

I answered. You are not comprehending.

Yes. We were close to losing democracy that day. Had the mob not been successfully repelled, President Trump would have attempted to prolong the delay while his lawyers lawyered the situation to his advantage. Trump would have lionized his mob as they inhabited the building like college students in the deans office.

Whether democracy had been thwarted for an hour, or a year, or if Trump placed crowns on the heads of Baron von Trump, Usay, Quday and Javaka, to serve in perpetuity, democracy was lost.

OK, you don't want to address the question, fine with me.

But the question remains, "do you believe that we literally were about to lose our democracy as a result of the J6 "insurrection?" If so, I would like to hear your speculation about how that occurs.

Well done! You've boxed the howlers in, so now they're lashing out.

To be a leftist - a true blue one - you have to do two things:

1. Lie to yourself before you start lying to others
2. Completely suspend disbelief when it comes to left wing talking points

Normals can't do this kind of thing; it requires either a) repeated head trauma or b) hallucinogenic drugs. 

It's January 7, Mike Pence is dead, the insurrectionists are barricaded in the capitol. Trump wakes up at the Whitehouse, has a nice breakfast, then he..... <fill in the roadmap that leads to Trump becoming a dictator>

Bad scenario - out of fear of the rioters Mike Pence rejects and attempts to accept the new electoral slates, but chaos ensues and the count isn't finished.everyone evacuates for the insurrectionists. The group reconvenes and (best case) 1. without the violence pressure, Mike Pence agrees to resume the count without the fake elector slates, 2. Pence is replaced, the count is resumed, Biden wins and no MAGA person ever considers him a legit President, 3. rioters attempt to capture congress critters and Pence, gunfire erupts and about 20 to 30 insurrectionists become martyrs. Six police are killed. Martial law is declared. The count resumes, Biden is declared President but never consider legit by MAGa who yell "Civil War" brandishing AR-15s, etc.

The question you are avoiding is "Were we close to losing our democracy?

It’s an irrelevant question. If we were, and it succeeded, then there is no remedy.

Therefore it is only important that it was “an attempt.” It clearly was “an attempt”, just like holding up a drug store but not coming away with any loot.

No one is avoiding the question. You’re trying to be too cute by half. This sort of nonsense doesn’t stand in any legal sense, and a court would throw you out or admonish you for continuing to try an irrelevant tactic.

Lambo: And we owe Mike Pence a lot.

Um.

Mike Pence tried like hell to find someone who would tell him it was okay to reject the electoral certificates and throw the election to the House. But there were still a few White House lawyers and a couple of republicans who understood the legal jeopardy and who still had some personal ethics.

Pence lawyer Greg Jacob told Pence if he implemented Eastman’s proposal, he would likely lose in court. In a best-case scenario in which the courts refused to get involved, Pence would likely find himself in an isolated standoff against both houses of Congress, as well as most or all of the applicable State legislatures, with no neutral arbiter available to break the impasse.

Pence then ran to others seeking approval until, finally, of all people, he found fellow Indianan, former vice president Dan Quayle, and begged for his okay.

Over and over, Pence asked if there was anything he could do.

“‘Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,’” Quayle told him.

Pence pressed again.

“‘You don’t know the position I’m in,’” he said.

“‘I do know the position you’re in,’ Quayle responded. ‘I also know what the law is. You listen to the parliamentarian. That’s all you do. You have no power.’”

So don't be so quick to throw rose petals on the path Pence reluctantly agreed to travel.

If you want to give him props, do so for his refusal to leave the Capitol during the insurrection because he might never have returned (which seemed like the Trump plan all along) and the insurrection would have succeeded in causing massive chaos (certainly what Trump was trying to achieve).


https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/14/politics/dan-quayle...

Dope1: The mob wasn't armed, so your facts are off.

You will never give up trying to whitewash this insurrection, led by Trump. MAGA! cult.

...the Brooks Brother insurrection in Florida ...

I note an amusing sign being held up when that happened - a towel with the slogan "Sore Loserman 2000". Very clever 😊

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/brooks-...

It clearly was “an attempt”, just like holding up a drug store but not coming away with any loot.

No it wasn't. Have you seen the video of the goobers in the Capitol? What was the guy with the horns doing that entire time?

The group reconvenes and (best case)....

A scenario in which '20 to 30 insurrectionists become martyrs' was not likely. A successful occupation of the building would evolve like a college admin being occupied

Nat Guard would form a perimeter to prevent more J6ers from entering with weapons and pizza. Electors would cool their heels around town. LEOs would plan a sweep with lots of gas, shields, rubber bullets.

When all the resources were in position (busses, medical tents, etc), a large riot suppression force would enter and retake the building.

After a major cleanup, the electoral process would resume.

What would Trump do during this process? Tweet? Fling catsup? Praise the mob? Deny responsibility?

It's January 7, Mike Pence is dead, the insurrectionists are barricaded in the capitol. Trump wakes up at the Whitehouse, has a nice breakfast, then he..... <fill in the roadmap that leads to Trump becoming a dictator>

Here's the roadmap:

1) With Pence dead, there is no person holding the office of President of the Senate. Under the 12th Amendment, the President of the Senate is necessary in order to finalize the results of the Electoral College vote. Therefore, the 2020 election is not - and cannot be - final until a new VP is filled. Even if that role is ministerial or ceremonial, it still has to happen.
2) Under the 25th Amendment, a vacancy in the Vice Presidency is filled by nomination by the President, confirmed by both chambers of Congress.
3) Trump either declines to nominate a replacement VP, or nominates someone who adheres to the view that the VP can decline to certify EC slates from states (like, say, John Eastman). In the latter case, the nominee would not get confirmed by the House, so there would continue to be a vacancy.
4) Trump declares that until the results of the 2020 election are certified, there isn't a valid successor. So he will continue in the role until such time as the mess is resolved.
5) SCOTUS sides with Trump. Unlike the rather weak arguments in the Eastman memo, there's a much stronger case here. While the 12th Amendment doesn't give any discretion to the VP to choose which states he's going to certify, there's nothing in the text that makes his certification of the EC results optional. Under the text, his role is ministerial, but mandatory. SCOTUS can't order the President to nominate someone, and they can't order the Congress to confirm who he nominates - so there's nothing the Court can do.

So - Trump continues to insist he's President until the election is certified, the election never gets certified, and then....what happens? Who is the President on January 21, 2021? At that point, the unsatisfactory - but probably correct - answer is that the President on that day is the person that the military is willing to take orders from. And while that might possibly be Biden, and not Trump, that's certainly not a democratic process any more. The winner wouldn't at that point be decided by the vote that was taken on Election Day, but by exercise of power by the military. And if they back Trump, Biden isn't going to be able to take office - defeating the results of the election.

(Note - you end up in kind of the same place if Pence survives but is frightened enough to cave to the Eastman process. But there's just a better chance that SCOTUS might actually do something at that point).

So - Trump continues to insist he's President until the election is certified, the election never gets certified, and then....what happens? Who is the President on January 21, 2021? At that point, the unsatisfactory - but probably correct - answer is that the President on that day is the person that the military is willing to take orders from. And while that might possibly be Biden, and not Trump, that's certainly not a democratic process any more. The winner wouldn't at that point be decided by the vote that was taken on Election Day, but by exercise of power by the military. And if they back Trump, Biden isn't going to be able to take office - defeating the results of the election.

Would the military have followed Trump? Absolutely not.
Then there's the riots in the streets aspect, which would change the calculus.

Here's the roadmap:

Thanks for fleshing that out Albaby. So Pthe's statement - but for Mike pence- appears to be correct.

Would the military have followed Trump? Absolutely not.

No way to know. At that point, the Secretary of Defense is Christopher Miller (Trump having fired Esper for his intransigence on a number of issues), who might have gone along. Mark Milley is Chair of the JCOS, who was no fan of Trump's efforts to stay in power....but if SCOTUS agrees that Biden isn't President yet (because the election hasn't been certified because there's no one there to certify it), who knows who Milley decides is President?

But regardless, the mere fact that we reach the point where the President is who the military says it is - rather than who actually won the election - means that the democratic process has failed.

The question you are avoiding is "Were we close to losing our democracy?

Sorry, Mike. You ask a question that cannot be answered. Just read the thread. Everyone has a different opinion about how close it was and there are many scenarios.

The correct question is:

Why were we in a position where there was any possibility we might lose our democracy?

Every president since George Washington has peacefully handed the reins of power to the next person, until Donald Trump.

Close or far isn’t relevant. The fact that there was a possibility of losing our democracy is the only thing relevant.

And that was due to a weak, insecure person with an overinflated ego who valued his own interests over our nation’s democracy.

And Republicans have put that person in position to attempt the same thing again. Trump is obviously a sick man and his supporters keep empowering him and making excuses for him.

This is not a game.

It’s dead serious.

Mike Pence tried like hell to find someone who would tell him it was okay to reject the electoral certificates

I know. But he could've gone along with it and he didn't. That counts.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was. There definitely were insurrectionist elements there.

The group reconvenes and (best case)....

A scenario in which '20 to 30 insurrectionists become martyrs' was not likely.

That wasn't the best case, it was the third case. :)

But regardless, the mere fact that we reach the point where the President is who the military says it is - rather than who actually won the election - means that the democratic process has failed.



Jeeesh! We design a system where a ministerial position being unfilled causes the most major democratic process to fail.

Yes it was. There definitely were insurrectionist elements there.

Riiiiight. Let's be generous and say there were a couple of dozen genuine nutjobs who really thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and install Trump as Presidente for Life.

What as their probability of success?

Let's be generous and say there were a couple of dozen genuine nutjobs who really thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and install Trump as Presidente for Life.

What as their probability of success?

That's not the generous framing. Rather, the generous framing is that there were a couple of dozen nutjobs who thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election.

Did that have a great probability of success in achieving that goal? Perhaps not, but probably no worse chance of success than other incidents that typically are considered insurrections/rebellions (like John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, Nat Turner's slave revolt, or the Whiskey Rebellion).

That's not the generous framing. Rather, the generous framing is that there were a couple of dozen nutjobs who thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election.

Okay, let's be SUPER GENEROUS and say there were a couple of dozen nutjobs armed with pepper spray and signs who thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election.

What was their probability of success?

The answer is...less than zero.

Perhaps not, but probably no worse chance of success than other incidents that typically are considered insurrections/rebellions (like John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, Nat Turner's slave revolt, or the Whiskey Rebellion).

There were no fewer that 11 armed rebellions between 1776 and the Civil War, with the most significant being Shay's Rebellion, which featured some 4,500 rebels armed with more than signs and pepper spray. None of them succeeded, obviously.

At some point you guys are going to have to bow to the inevitable and admit that the democrats' histrionics over January 6th are straight from Fantasy Island. There's no There there in terms of argumentative ground for the left to stand on.

Okay, let's be SUPER GENEROUS and say there were a couple of dozen nutjobs armed with pepper spray and signs who thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election.

What was their probability of success?

Very poor. Which wouldn't affect whether this was an insurrection or not - most insurrections have poor to vanishingly low odds of success.

But....not zero. Had Pence been killed, or scared enough to change his position, then they would have been successful. As it was, they did manage to prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election for at least a couple of hours longer than would have happened. Had they managed to stretch that out from hours to a day or two (unlikely but not insanely so), it would have created enough space for something to happen that might have led Pence (or enough more Congresscritters) to jam up the process. I think that was what the non-nutjobs that were taking this very seriously were aiming for - to create enough chaos on Jan. 6 so that the certification stretched outside of "normal" processes, creating an opening for other players in the process to achieve goals that would have been foreclosed if everything had just gone according to rote.

Unlikely? Sure. Any insurrection against the U.S. government is unlikely to succeed. But storming the U.S. Capitol with all of the elected members of the federal government (save the President) inside of it while doing an essential act is probably the best of all scenarios for interfering with the transition of power.

I don't think there was much chance of that happening, but not zero chance.

Had Pence been killed, or scared enough to change his position, then they would have been successful.

Okay. Let's game this one out.
We have a couple of dozen nutjobs heavily armed with pepper spray and signs. They're going to bust in on Pence, grab him and take him out.

By the time they got to the hallway where Ashli Babbit died, there were dudes in there with M4's standing right next to the mob. Then there's whatever armed detail Pence had with him. How would that have gone?

As it was, they did manage to prevent Joe Biden from being certified as the winner of the election for at least a couple of hours longer than would have happened.

Wow, that's some real End of The Republic stuff right there.

Had they managed to stretch that out from hours to a day or two (unlikely but not insanely so), it would have created enough space for something to happen that might have led Pence (or enough more Congresscritters) to jam up the process.

Uh, huh. Like what?
The democrats have objected to every. single. GOP. Presidential victory in the last 20 years. How much did that slow down the process?

But storming the U.S. Capitol with all of the elected members of the federal government (save the President) inside of it while doing an essential act is probably the best of all scenarios for interfering with the transition of power.

Really. You're aware that most buildings in DC are connected by tunnels so you can get VIPs in and out whenever and wherever, right? That takes the CAPITOL UNDER SEIGE BY ANGRY MOB WITH STICKS AND PEPPER SPRAY kind of off the table. I don't think there's a line in the Constitution that says Congress can't certify the Presidential election with a voice vote in the hallway of say, the Smithsonian or the Treasury building.

Hey, not so fast. Remember - this armed mob of armed insurrectionists had pepper spray and signs they were using as clubs!

I was going to call this more 'whitewashing', but maybe orangewashing fits better.

Do you truly believe every Trump/MAGA lie? Or just pretend to?

We have a couple of dozen nutjobs heavily armed with pepper spray and signs. They're going to bust in on Pence, grab him and take him out.

By the time they got to the hallway where Ashli Babbit died, there were dudes in there with M4's standing right next to the mob. Then there's whatever armed detail Pence had with him. How would that have gone?

Probably not well for the mob. Then again, the officers that were injured during the storming of the capitol were also armed (though not with M4's), and still they were hurt. Sometimes a mob can get an advantage through shear numbers, and for obvious reasons the dudes with M4's may be slow/reticent to start firing automatic weapons into a crowd.

The democrats have objected to every. single. GOP. Presidential victory in the last 20 years. How much did that slow down the process?

Not a bit, because although you say "the democrats," there were only a handful (sometimes only one) protest votes against certification. They never stormed and seized the U.S. Capitol. Nothing on this scale has ever happened with protesting a Presidential victory - either by the Congressbeings or by rioters.

Really. You're aware that most buildings in DC are connected by tunnels so you can get VIPs in and out whenever and wherever, right? That takes the CAPITOL UNDER SEIGE BY ANGRY MOB WITH STICKS AND PEPPER SPRAY kind of off the table. I don't think there's a line in the Constitution that says Congress can't certify the Presidential election with a voice vote in the hallway of say, the Smithsonian or the Treasury building.

I'm aware of both the existence of the tunnels and the text of the Constitution. They could have had their sessions in the conference center of the Radisson out by the interstate, if they wanted. But they're not actually going to conduct the voice vote in the hallway of the Smithsonian or at the Radisson. There's all sorts of logistical issues with that, and that was never likely to happen. What was the most likely outcome is what did happen - Congress waited for the building to be cleared, and then they went back and conducted business. Had the rioters held the Capitol for a little while longer, the outcome would have likely been the same. Only if it looked like they would hold the building for an extended period of time would the Congress have fallen back on a Plan B - and the irregularities of holding a vote somewhere other than Capitol Hill create opportunities for the objecting Congresscritters to try to hold things up.

It's also worth noting that these types of insurrectionist attacks aren't always - or even usually - about the direct consequence of the attack on the target. The classic example is the storming of the Bastille, which kicked off the French Revolution. The Bastille itself wasn't important to the administration of the French government, and there wasn't anyone or anything especially important in it (though there were some gunpowder stores). No one would have ever suggested that seizing the Bastille would in itself provide any direct power, control, or interference with the French monarchy. Taking the Bastille itself didn't stop the government from doing anything significant. But it is the ur-example of an insurrection, because the storming of the Bastille was a critical flashpoint in the revolution.

That's pretty common - a group of insurrectionists or insurgents or rebels will attack or take over something that does not itself give them any particular control or power over the government, but is a demonstration of (and they hope a call to others to engage in) resistance to the government. The difference between the barricades in the June Rebellion in 1832 (the failed and inconsequetial insurrection memorialized in Les Miserables) and the similar efforts in the successful 1848 French Revolution was the reaction of the populace, not anything different about the insurrectionist acts.

I presume that those defending the January 6 attempted insurrectionists on the basis of their having a low probability of success also would defend the people who attempted to assassinate Trump on the same grounds...a low probability of success? (As was proven by the results.)

Funny, I don't remember seeing any of those arguments.

Riiiiight. Let's be generous and say there were a couple of dozen genuine nutjobs who really thought they were going to bust in the Capitol and install Trump as Presidente for Life.

That's not being generous and success is not determinative.

Trump's had two assassination attempts that were not successful. They're both still assassination attempts, not negligent discharges of weapons or having a gun to near an ex President.

No one is avoiding the question. You’re trying to be too cute by half. This sort of nonsense doesn’t stand in any legal sense, and a court would throw you out or admonish you for continuing to try an irrelevant tactic. - Goofy

---------------

Now you are really veering off into the weeds. Tell me what I asserted that a court would admonish and throw out. I never mentioned bringing anything to a court. My only point was that those who believe we were close to losing our democracy that day are wrong about that outcome. The word "literally" was used.

the insurrection would have succeeded in causing massive chaos - CO

--------------

Agreed. What I don't agree with was that we were on the verge of losing our democracy. I have the utmost faith in our citizens, both Red and Blue, would never give up their democracy to a dictator under any circumstance, let alone due to the chaos resulting from J6.

After a major cleanup, the electoral process would resume. - sano

--------------

Exactly, a common sense conclusion, after a massive cleanup, our democracy continues.

Then again, the officers that were injured during the storming of the capitol were also armed (though not with M4's), and still they were hurt. Sometimes a mob can get an advantage through shear numbers, and for obvious reasons the dudes with M4's may be slow/reticent to start firing automatic weapons into a crowd.

That's because it was merely a riot at that point. The scenario we're walking down is one wherein the #2 guy in the government is to be hunted down, captured and killed. That makes it deadly force scenario for Pence's protective detail and for any LEOs in the vicinity (who, in that scenario, are automatically deputized with the same Rules of Engagement that Pence's detail would have in a worst case scenario).

Not a bit, because although you say "the democrats," there were only a handful (sometimes only one) protest votes against certification. They never stormed and seized the U.S. Capitol. Nothing on this scale has ever happened with protesting a Presidential victory - either by the Congressbeings or by rioters.

Yeah. So? The 2020 inauguration was also beset by riots. Didn't slow anything down.
In our USA Up All Night B-movie scenario that we're outlining, even in the worst, worst case Biden's certification would have been slowed down by maybe all of...

...wait for it...

a couple of hours. Max.

But it is the ur-example of an insurrection, because the storming of the Bastille was a critical flashpoint in the revolution.

Okay. So were there mobs of Proud Boys ready to start erecting guillotines in and around Washington, D.C.?

That's not being generous and success is not determinative.

It IS being generous in that there probably wasn't more than a handful of people who were hellbent on kidnapping Mike Pence.

Even the guy with the horns rather meekly walked around the building - escorted by Capitol police, by the way - before...walking out.

Hardly speaks to the left-wing narrative of A HUGE BIG NATIONAL PLOT TO INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS EL PRESIDENTE AND OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Are you willing to admit that the media and posters on this board took the scenario too far and have been engaging in silly levels of hyperbole?

Exactly, a common sense conclusion, after a massive cleanup, our democracy continues

Oooo, look. Baby steps toward admitting that all the talk about OVERTHROWING THE US GOVERNMENT was always overblown.

They'll never, ever come out and say that though.

I have the utmost faith in our citizens, both Red and Blue, would never give up their democracy to a dictator under any circumstance, let alone due to the chaos resulting from J6.

And yet 139 Republican House members and 8 Republican Senators were willing to do just that AFTER the insurrection failed.

Currently, many Republicans are involved in activity to either block certification and/or sow confusion and doubt about the 2024 election.

And the Republican Party named the person who instigated the insurrection to run for the Presidency a third time.

I wish there was more than just faith to rely on.

That's because it was merely a riot at that point. The scenario we're walking down is one wherein the #2 guy in the government is to be hunted down, captured and killed.

Not necessarily, and not even likely. This scenario involves Pence and his team getting caught up in the mob, who takes their anger (rage? disappointment?) out on him. Or put enough of a scare into him that he decides that he's not going to stick to his guns.

In our USA Up All Night B-movie scenario that we're outlining, even in the worst, worst case Biden's certification would have been slowed down by maybe all of...

...wait for it...

a couple of hours. Max.

Unless they were successful in stopping the certification for more than a couple of hours. Delaying the certification creates additional opportunities to get Congress to not certify it at all. Once the vote is certified, the cause was lost; before it was certified, there were still chances to stop it. The mob was never going to be able to stop the vote by itself, any more than the mob of a less than a thousand Parisians that stormed the Bastille was itself going to be able to overthrow the monarchy. The point of an insurrectionary act is not always to seize power in a single stroke, but to move towards that goal.

Okay. So were there mobs of Proud Boys ready to start erecting guillotines in and around Washington, D.C.?

No. And neither were there mobs of Parisians erecting guillotines in and around Paris on July 14, 1789 (would have been anachronistic anyway - it didn't come into use in France until much later in the Revolution, really not until the Terror). The storming of the Bastille was just an angry mob seizing a barely-utilized government building from a small garrison of invalide veterans, barely supplemented with a few regular-duty soldiers. The mob wasn't trying to depose the king with that act, or establish a power base for a replacement. They were just expressing rebellion against the government. The building had no tactical value and the king and all the government ministers were dozens of miles away in Versailles at the time. But it was an act of insurrection nonetheless. It's intensely meaningful and historically significant because the rest of the country took up that revolt, but not because the storming of the Bastille itself had any tangible impact on the exercise of French government functions.

The storming of the Bastille succeeded as an insurrectionary event, while the storming of the Capitol failed, because the rest of the country seized on it as a symbol and made it the flashpoint of the French Revolution. Not because the Bastille was more important to the functioning of the French government than the Capitol building.

As for this....

Hardly speaks to the left-wing narrative of A HUGE BIG NATIONAL PLOT TO INSTALL DONALD TRUMP AS EL PRESIDENTE AND OVERTHROW THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

...the big national plot was the effort to create "alternate" slates of electors, sow enough confusion in the Congress that the elected Republicans refuse to certify Biden's win, and therefore overthrow the transition of power to the person who won the election. Not the mob storming the Bast....the Capitol Building. Autogolpes don't involve overthrowing the government - they involve holding power that has been legitimately transferred to another.

They want to use government to control women’s healthcare, what books you can read, what religion is represented in schools, what is taught in schools (like slavery had some good outcomes), who gets to vote, how voter suppression is applied,

Heh. Had to come back to this Web Gem after reading this today:

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/...

The board of elections in North Carolina removed 747,000 individuals from voter rolls over the past 20 months because they are ineligible for registration.

The State Board of Elections said in a press release people were removed from the rolls due to moving to another state, dying, or personally requesting to be removed, according to The Hill.

Yeah. We want to use government to make sure that dead people and other ineligible voters don't vote democrat.

Because they have no right to. It's really simple.

Not necessarily, and not even likely. This scenario involves Pence and his team getting caught up in the mob, who takes their anger (rage? disappointment?) out on him. Or put enough of a scare into him that he decides that he's not going to stick to his guns.

No, no, no, no - this scenario is based on the left wing narrative that Trump incited an armed mob to go down the to Capitol and overthrow the government. There's not any of this where Pence gets a choice - they were coming for him according to the Tall Tales of January 6 that we've been graced with in the media and on this board.

Unless they were successful in stopping the certification for more than a couple of hours.

How, exactly?

There were only a few dozen (and that's being generous) nutjobs. They had pepper spray and signs. Not automatic rifles. As you yourself admitted, the second this bloodthirsty, insurrection-y, violent mob incited by Trump to overthrow the government ran into Pence's protective detail it wouldn't have gone well for them.

...the big national plot was the effort to create "alternate" slates of electors, sow enough confusion in the Congress that the elected Republicans refuse to certify Biden's win, and therefore overthrow the transition of power to the person who won the election. Not the mob storming the Bast....the Capitol Building. Autogolpes don't involve overthrowing the government - they involve holding power that has been legitimately transferred to another.

Again, we're playing out the B-movie narrative that every left wing journalist in the country has been braying about for 3 and half years.

Are you willing to admit that the media and posters on this board took the scenario too far and have been engaging in silly levels of hyperbole?

Every one here gets to watch you bring up the same points that have been refuted before over and over and over and over and over again. You never admit anything.

Every one here gets to watch you bring up the same points that have been refuted before over and over and over and over and over again. You never admit anything.

So there's you making it about me rather than addressing the issue.

I'll go ahead and put you down for a 'no', then. Thanks!

The State Board of Elections said in a press release people were removed from the rolls due to moving to another state, dying, or personally requesting to be removed, according to The Hill.

Yeah. We want to use government to make sure that dead people and other ineligible voters don't vote democrat

Dope, California sent me a fold over green card to remove myself from the voter rolls, which I did. I had been in California for nine months, didn't owe them any money, but I filed taxes to start the statute of limitation running. They compared and saw my new address. So there are two places that can be geared to help voter registration - DMV for people coming into the state, reaching the age of 18, and taxes can give you the new out of state address, If states would cooperate with each other they could also do more.

Dope, California sent me a fold over green card to remove myself from the voter rolls, which I did. I had been in California for nine months, didn't owe them any money, but I filed taxes to start the statute of limitation running. They compared and saw my new address. So there are two places that can be geared to help voter registration - DMV for people coming into the state, reaching the age of 18, and taxes can give you the new out of state address, If states would cooperate with each other they could also do more.

Thank you for doing the right thing.

No, no, no, no - this scenario is based on the left wing narrative that Trump incited an armed mob to go down the to Capitol and overthrow the government. There's not any of this where Pence gets a choice - they were coming for him according to the Tall Tales of January 6 that we've been graced with in the media and on this board.

You're asking how this possibly results in Trump remaining President. That's one of the scenarios. That the angry mob creates such an impact that Pence reconsiders his recalcitrance, bows to the reality that the American people believe so strongly in this cause that he should relent. That's one possibility. Several people in this thread have mentioned it - I think you're just focusing on your own sense of the single story, not what other people are saying to you.

There were only a few dozen (and that's being generous) nutjobs. They had pepper spray and signs. Not automatic rifles. As you yourself admitted, the second this bloodthirsty, insurrection-y, violent mob incited by Trump to overthrow the government ran into Pence's protective detail it wouldn't have gone well for them.

It didn't go well for those storming the Bastille, either. The defenders had the fortress walls and cannon, and killed more than 10% of the mob (nearly a hundred people) while suffering only a single death themselves (until after their surrender). The fact that it wouldn't go well from them doesn't mean that they don't succeed in an act of violence that brings slows the certification down by more than a few hours.

Again, we're playing out the B-movie narrative that every left wing journalist in the country has been braying about for 3 and half years.

Sure - you asked for the scenario where this results in Trump remaining President. Or BHM did, I've lost track. They were modestly successful in these efforts - they managed to get dozens of people to falsely sign their names as electors, generating several false slates, and convinced more than 100 Congressbeings to refuse to acknowledge what actually happened during the election so that Trump could stay in power. It was ultimately unsuccessful, but the effort was definitely there to try to wrongly utilize the certification process as a way of preventing the actual winner of the election from becoming President.

Or did none of that happen? There weren't any second slates of electors falsely claiming that Trump won their states' elections? More than half of the GOP House caucus didn't refuse to certify the election results that Biden won? That was all a B-movie, not real life? Could of sworn that stuff actually happened....

Several people in this thread have mentioned it - I think you're just focusing on your own sense of the single story, not what other people are saying to you.

No, what people are saying in this thread is "Trump incited an armed resurrection" on 1/6. I'm highlighting how ridiculous that narrative is and how equally ridiculous it was for the media and the left in general to front it for 3 and a half years.

The fact that it wouldn't go well from them doesn't mean that they don't succeed in an act of violence that brings slows the certification down by more than a few hours.

Uh, huh. And so what? The narrative is that the intent was to overthrow the government, not merely slow down the process.

They were modestly successful in these efforts - they managed to get dozens of people to falsely sign their names as electors, generating several false slates, and convinced more than 100 Congressbeings to refuse to acknowledge what actually happened during the election so that Trump could stay in power. It was ultimately unsuccessful, but the effort was definitely there to try to wrongly utilize the certification process as a way of preventing the actual winner of the election from becoming President.

Where in that lies the armed insurrection?

The narrative is that the intent was to overthrow the government,

No Dope, the intent was to stop the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. Capiche?

LOL. The left's narrative is "Trump incited a mob to engage in an armed insurrection". 'Insurrection' being defined by Merriam-Webster as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

No Dope, the intent was to stop the transfer of power from Trump to Biden. Capiche?

That's called a "distinction without a difference". You're splitting hairs.

Want to admit the rhetoric went too far, or shall we keep going?

Want to admit the rhetoric went too far, or shall we keep going? - Dope

---------------

Pretending overthrowing our government was imminent serves to make Trump even more menacing so the fantasy must be maintained until November 6.

Dope1: LOL. The left's narrative is "Trump incited a mob to engage in an armed insurrection". 'Insurrection' being defined by Merriam-Webster as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

You chose to ignore established facts.

Sending the mob to the Capitol was part of a conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Biden, an effort to delay the certification of the new president so supporters of former president Trump in seven states could present fake electors paperwork to Congress and create a path to keep him in the White House despite his loss.

When the fake elector certificates from two critical battleground states were stuck in the mail Trump campaign operatives scrambled to fly copies of the phony certificates from Michigan and Wisconsin to Congress.

Kenneth Chesebro, a top Trump campaign lawyer, briefed Trump about the fake electors plan and how it tied into January 6.

Republicans in both the House and Senate were prepared to object to the certification of Joe Biden. In fact, eight senators and 139 representatives voted to sustain one or both objections when they were brought forward for a vote.

I'd suggest you stop being so obtuse but recognize you spent months calling for Hillary Clinton to be imprisoned for having ambiguously marked classified documents sent to her on her email server but still cannot bring yourself to do the same for the Orange Idiot who had more than 300 classified documents unprotected in the open at Mar-a-Lago, clearly marked with the highest level of classification, including top secret/sensitive compartmented information.

Pretending overthrowing our government was imminent serves to make Trump even more menacing so the fantasy must be maintained until November 6.

I mostly skim posts here, and skip lots (on both sides), so I could easily be mistaken, but I'm not remembering a lot of posts claiming that overthrowing our government was "imminent". For myself, I'll never know how close we were, but we were a helluva lot closer than I'd ever like to see us, that's for sure.

To me, their chances of success aren't really what's important at this point. I suspect I'm not alone in this view, and that is why you weren't getting many responses addressing their chances for success. I believe most responses were trying to show you why that is irrelevant.

What is important is what were they trying to do, and even more importantly, what did then-President Trump do to try to stop it and/or fan the flames?

Since you've seemingly acknowledged that the intent of some of the rioters was an insurrection,

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=51806016

what do you think should be done with them? Should they all be pardoned, as Trump has said he would do? How do you feel about Trump not doing anything to try to calm the situation for several hours?

But the question remains, "do you believe that we literally were about to lose our democracy as a result of the J6 "insurrection?" If so, I would like to hear your speculation about how that occurs.

I'm the one who floated that most recently here, so let me give you my thoughts.

It's January 7, Mike Pence is dead, the insurrectionists are barricaded in the capitol. Trump wakes up at the Whitehouse, has a nice breakfast, then he..... <fill in the roadmap that leads to Trump becoming a dictator>

First off, that's not how it starts. That's a path to failure. If they killed Pence, they've already failed. If they kill Pence before counting the Electoral College votes, someone will have to replace him in the role that Pence filled. I'm guessing that would be the majority leader. With a 50/50 Senate and the Trump administration still in place, that would be Mitch McConnell. McConnell was against this whole plan from the get go. He openly encouraged his party not to engage in this. So he would have been just as much against it as Pence. And with the insurrectionists already having killed Pence, the appetite for the plan among the GOP membership would have dried up. Even in our real world, while there were 12 Senators who had said they would object to one or more of the states votes, after the riot, several of them did not follow through on those plans. Even more would likely abandon their previously announced plans, particularly with McConnell not cooperating in it.

So that alternate reality is a non-starter.

How the insurrection succeeds is by convincing Pence to go along with the plan. Here's how that works.

The riot finishes up, the Capitol building is cleared, and Pence is now scared enough to go along with the plan. He gets the "alternate" slates of electors, stands up in front of the re-convened joint session, and when he gets to certain states, announces that the state has submitted two slates and there is no way to tell which one is the actual slate. With those disputed and uncounted votes, neither candidate gets 270 electors and the decision is tossed to the House, where each state gets a vote. With more than half of the states having Republicans as the majority of their House delegation, Trump will win.

Are there potential legal objections to this result? Of course. But those objections will happen with Trump still as president - either finishing out the remainder of his proper term, or having taken the oath of office for second time. And with the office of the Presidency in his pocket, along with a majority in the House and Senate, he will expand his role over the next 4 years, incrementally changing the country from a democracy to a dictatorship. Judicial appointments will be of only those beholden to Trump. Executive branch Departments and Agencies are staffed with loyalists. Any judicial decisions contrary to Trump will not be enforced. The offending judge likely impeached and removed from office as a penalty.

The gist is not that Trump would instantly become a dictator, but that he will use the wrappings of democracy to enforce his dictatorial will. We'd still have Congress and courts and probably even elections. Remember that even Putin and Xi and Kim get re-elected from time to time. Bills would be debated and voted on in Congress. Judges would continue to make their rulings. But the only things that happen will be the things the dictator allows to happen. If anyone attempts to do something that is against the dictator's will, that person will be removed and their decisions immediately reversed in some way that appears to be consistent with our historical democracy, even though it is the dictator calling the shots. A state law passed that is "wrong"? The government officials will suddenly resign or die or simply change their mind. A new bill repealing the "wrong" bill will be passed. But nothing is actually democratic - done by the will of the people. It's all dictatorial - done in accordance with the dictator's wishes.

--Peter

There were no fewer that 11 armed rebellions between 1776 and the Civil War,

But let's make note that even you call them rebellions. Would you prefer that we call Jan 6 a rebellion rather than an insurrection? I could live with that, as it's a bad look either way.

Hey, history books! Let Jan 6 be known as Trump's rebellion.

--Peter

what do you think should be done with them? Should they all be pardoned, as Trump has said he would do? - Carplan

There is no one punishment for all of them. I see it gradations of criminality, each with its own punishment level.

1. The harshest punishments should go to those who actually injured another person.

2.The next harshest would apply to the instigators and planners and agitators who colluded with others to accomplish the disruption and provided embedded instigators to fan the flames.

3. The next harshest should go to those who committed property damages, vandalism, broken windows, doors and other stuff, stealing property. But no damage to any other human.

4. The least harsh punishment would go to those who had simply followed the crowd and walked around for a while and left when they were told to.

5. No punishment for those who remained outside the capitol and did no harm to people or property.

And within each group there would be varying levels of punishment based on the nature of the specific offense and degree of contrition.

I think there is room for pardons somewhere, more in group 4 and 99% of everybody in group 5.

*****

How do you feel about Trump not doing anything to try to calm the situation for several hours?

He should have condemned what the rioters were doing and told them to go home. Not sure they would have listened but he should have tried.

"There were only a few dozen (and that's being generous) nutjobs. They had pepper spray and signs. Not automatic rifles. As you yourself admitted, the second this bloodthirsty, insurrection-y, violent mob incited by Trump to overthrow the government ran into Pence's protective detail it wouldn't have gone well for them." - Dope.

Ashley Babbitt got shot by the protective detail of someone (a Congressman, Senator, or maybe even Pence's detail). I don't believe the name of the person who was being protected has ever been released.

Anyway, Ashley Babbitt was the lead part of a violent, chaotic mob that was chanting death threats, beating police officers to a bloody mess, and physically destroying property in an effort to get into the room the protectee was in. Dope, BHM, and LurkerMom have all gone on record here as making a hero of Ashley Babbitt. There is a really good chance that they would also support the people who got gunned down by Pence's protective detail in Dope's hypothetical scenario above.

To this day I have never seen a post from any of those three saying Ashley Babbitt's death was no one's fault but her own because she CHOOSE to be part of a violent mob chanting death threats that wasn't supposed to be where it was and got a little too close to a protected person.

Dope, BHM, and Lurkermom have already clearly told us what type of people they are. Believe them.

The next harshest would apply to the instigators and planners and agitators who colluded with others to accomplish the disruption

And who would that be? Trump??? His advisors??? The list goes on, but my guess is that you think that it was a leaderless mob with no planners and agitators.

Aussi

After a major cleanup, the electoral process would resume. - sano
--------------
Exactly, a common sense conclusion, after a massive cleanup, our democracy continues.

Yes, but that does not change the fact that it was an attempted insurrection of the federal government of the United States of America by groups that had substantial weapons caches in local hotels ready to deploy.

If the attempted insurrection became a protracted situation, there's no telling one way or another what the outcome would be. We can only speculate.

The fact of the matter is we know what transpired and why. Juries have been weighing the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that evidence.

Insurrection' being defined by Merriam-Webster as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

Yeh, what Trump and his goons did.

The left's narrative is "Trump incited a mob to engage in an armed insurrection". 'Insurrection' being defined by Merriam-Webster as an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

Drop the word "armed" and I agree that's the narrative for me. I do realize some of them did have guns, etc., most were not armed, but it did become violent. That it was an insurrection there is no doubt. History will write it as an insurrection fomented by Trump with some traitors, that didn't have much of a chance of succeeding, but could have. Some people don't want to recognize that it was an insurrection. That's an emotional problem. Any clear eyed view of the event realizes the intent was there to stop the peaceful transition of power. There can be good faith disagreements on parts of it, but not on the overall idea that there was an insurrection going on.

Drop the word "armed" and I agree that's the narrative for me. I do realize some of them did have guns, etc., most were not armed, but it did become violent. That it was an insurrection there is no doubt. History will write it as an insurrection fomented by Trump with some traitors, that didn't have much of a chance of succeeding, but could have. Some people don't want to recognize that it was an insurrection. That's an emotional problem. Any clear eyed view of the event realizes the intent was there to stop the peaceful transition of power. There can be good faith disagreements on parts of it, but not on the overall idea that there was an insurrection going on.

No, one can agree that it was a riot gone bad even an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff.

No, one can agree that it was a riot gone bad even an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff.

Rephrasing: No, one can agree that it was a protest gone bad - turning into a riot - in an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff.

No, one can agree that it was a riot gone bad even an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff.

Nope. But I realize you may cling to that and am sympathetic, but firm. Th"riot gone bad" is not recognizing that for months and weeks prior to that the internet was alive with chat that "something big is going to happen", "civil war" and that Trump said it would be wild on Jan 6, etc. So there was a build up, then people were told they needed to fight and sent down to the capitol. In and amongst them were insurrectionist elements. Saying it was a "riot gone bad" doesn't recognize there was a scheme to halt the peaceful transfer of power going on. The person who fomented the insurrection with Trump, Trump, and those who assisted the scheme (elector slates, plans to capture polies) are traitors, not necessarily in the Constitutional sense, but in the overall meaning of the word. They betrayed America. These points are made to you to drive home the seriousness of what happened, but they are also very real.

Rephrasing: No, one can agree that it was a protest gone bad - turning into a riot - in an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff.

You're part way there. You need to include all of the scheming from the President, his advisors and out and down. To use your words, the "riot" was a cover to stopping the electoral count, which may have resulted in Pence changing his mind, or in the election being thrown into the House. don't limit your view to just the "riot" as you seem to be doing.

Just consider that every time someone says insurrection they mean insurrectionist elements, which may be may be 3 dozen - we don't know right now. So a reasonable person could conclude that there were rioters and insurrectionists there with varying degrees of culpability. You need to include all of the scheme(s) to get a better overall picture.

So there was a build up, then people were told they needed to fight and sent down to the capitol. In and amongst them were insurrectionist elements. Saying it was a "riot gone bad" doesn't recognize there was a scheme to halt the peaceful transfer of power going on. The person who fomented the insurrection with Trump, Trump, and those who assisted the scheme (elector slates, plans to capture polies) are traitors, not necessarily in the Constitutional sense, but in the overall meaning of the word. They betrayed America. These points are made to you to drive home the seriousness of what happened, but they are also very real.

What "chatter"? I'll remind you that if you're going to cite "Fight for the election" or some such thing you're opening yourself up to charges in reverse of democrats inciting violence, so you might as well agree in advance that political rhetoric gets heated from time to time.

You also are claiming facts not in evidence, such as 'Trump formenting the insurrection' and all that. I also reject your 'traitors' themes as they're meant to land emotional points.

Everything said about Trump causing the insurrection is washed away with what Trump actually said on the Mall that day, which was, go home in peace.

BTW democrats have fought to stop every Republican President from assuming office this century.

To use your words, the "riot" was a cover to stopping the electoral count, which may have resulted in Pence changing his mind, or in the election being thrown into the House. don't limit your view to just the "riot" as you seem to be doing.

Nope, sorry.
You're alleging a vast conspiracy that no evidence exists took place. That's why the J6 trials have largely been a farce where the DOJ has been handing down jail time for people who went into the Capitol and...then just left.

Just consider that every time someone says insurrection they mean insurrectionist elements, which may be may be 3 dozen - we don't know right now. So a reasonable person could conclude that there were rioters and insurrectionists there with varying degrees of culpability. You need to include all of the scheme(s) to get a better overall picture.

That's a conveniently vague frame to blanketly grab loads of extra activity and label it 'insurrection'. Won't work.

What "chatter"?

The part you didn't copy.

I'll remind you that if you're going to cite "Fight for the election" or some such thing you're opening yourself up to charges in reverse of democrats inciting violence, so you might as well agree in advance that political rhetoric gets heated from time to time.You also are claiming facts not in evidence, such as 'Trump formenting the insurrection' and all that. I also reject your 'traitors' themes as they're meant to land emotional points.

I'm talking historical reviews of this era and events some 50-100 years in the future by Real Historians.

Everything said about Trump causing the insurrection is washed away with what Trump actually said on the Mall that day, which was, go home in peace.

No. Historians will look at the build up, all the players, and what is documented to have occurred. There will be differences of opinion on aspects. At some point all the documents will become public record. You and I won't be alive then.

To use your words, the "riot" was a cover to stopping the electoral count, which may have resulted in Pence changing his mind, or in the election being thrown into the House. don't limit your view to just the "riot" as you seem to be doing.

Nope, sorry.
You're alleging a vast conspiracy that no evidence exists took place.

The historical evidence is there, nothing vast, but it was enough with different pieces and players in motion. How were the fake electoral slates set into motion? How did all the people converge on Jan 6 - and why was Jan 6 chosen? Was it just coincidence then that the electoral count was going on? Why were legal memos written to support substituting electoral slates if no one was thinking that? Why were some people carrying zip ties? How did people suddenly want to hang Mike Pence? What can Roger Stone be connected to? Why are Constitutional legal scholars risking their licenses and reputations?

We all know about the fake accusations/disinfo/lawsuits of election cheating. Trump pretty much played into the prediction that the mail in vote in Georgia would go blue and claimed it was cheating. Then he pressured Georgia to change the count. All of that, all the way back to pressuring Ukraine to say lies to help his election. It all gets considered, but there's no pattern or practice to it right?

Dope, BHM, and Lurkermom have already clearly told us what type of people they are. Believe them

Oh yawn,,,,

The only ones talking about J6 are the dems and the left hoping someone will pay attention to yesterday’s news in this election cycle.

Today’s news is the joke of the day the Border Czar finely actually spent about a half hour at the Border for a photo op. Look now for political ads Kamala will get tough on the illegal aliens crisis and will blame Trump for the mess she created..

Look now for political ads Kamala will get tough on the illegal aliens crisis and will blame Trump for the mess she created.. - LM

----------------

The center piece of her border plan is to massively ramp up intake capacity. That will cut the bad optics of those long lines down in no time.

"No, one can agree that it was a riot gone bad even an even more clear-eyed and neutral way. The emotional response is the "insurrection", "traitor" and other stuff." - Dope

Sure, but in order to reach that conclusion, you would have to ignore the fact that Roger Stone was communicating with the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers beforehand and those are some of the people who helped turned the mob violent. You would also have to ignore the fact that Steve Bannon knew what was coming beforehand. You would also have to ignore Trump and people in his orbit trying to convince Mike Pence to overturn a free and fair election. Then you would also have to ignore Trump taking pleasure at the violence (or at least not being disgusted by it). Then you would have to ignore the fact that Trump didn't mind if the crowd was armed (he wanted no metal detectors for his speech). Then you would also have to ignore all of the fake elector schemes brewed up by those in Trump's orbit. All of those things contribute to the labels of "insurrection".

That seems like an awfully lot of facts to ignore in order to reach the conclusion you want to reach in order to forgive your guy.

Most people don't want to engage in willful ignorance like you do. They would rather look at all of the facts and not ignore that which is inconvenient like you do.

You should read the stuff that came out of the House January 6th committee. There is much more than I presented here. I know you want to just wave your hands and make all of the facts that were presented there disappear. You want to pretend Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are not conservative (lol that was one of your funnier claims). You want to pretend that all of those people who testified under oath about Trump and his cronies are somehow lying.

But again, I repeat myself. You think willful ignorance is a form of argument. It isn't. Just because you want to ignore obvious facts that you find inconvenient, does not make them go away. It just makes you look like an idiot for ignoring the obvious right in front of your face.

"WASHINGTON — A member of the Oath Keepers who took an AR-15-to a Virginia hotel on the eve of the Jan. 6 riot described entering a room filled with a large stash of weapons in a seditious conspiracy trial Wednesday.

The Oath Keepers member, Terry Cummings, testified that "a lot of firearms cases" were in the hotel room when he dropped off his weapon at a Comfort Inn in Arlington, Virginia, on Jan. 5, 2021.

“I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” Cummings said.

Besides the bludgeons and chemicals that the insurrectionists used on Jan6, one cannot ignore the role the planners had for their weapons in this, and probably other locations on the eve of the attempted insurrections.

“Thankfully, (the weapons) were not used on January 6, but nevertheless they show a degree of planning, and preparation, and sophistication,” Mehta said. “And it’s something that projects into the future, if there are public demonstrations or government proceedings in the Capitol or in statehouses where these types of confrontations might occur.”

“Thankfully, (the weapons) were not used on January 6, but nevertheless they show a degree of planning, and preparation, and sophistication,”

And the leader of the Oath Keepers was one of the people Trump directed "Stand back and stand by" to in the debate. Roger Stone talked to Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, and some of that is on video tape. I think this supported the "something big is gonna happen" in the FB groups I was in. I remember needling them by saying - "Hey! When is the something big gonna happen?... I don't see anything big at all. Nothin! I mean wacha gonna do? You gonna keep saying that forever? It's gonna be like WMD in Iraq?"

Then when Jan 6 did happen, I was was getting videos of people staying within velvet roped lines and looking at everything around them. They seemed respectful and awe struck, then the footage came of the violence outside - Holy Sh!!!. Those FB groups were shut down as we grappled with what actually happened that day and the run up to it. It took a while to piece it together enough to realize what transpired.

In the Chennault Affair, prior to the election Nixon had Haldermen contact Chenault to talk to the Vietnam ambassador, requesting that they not agree to LBJ's plan to end the war. There was no direct proof that Nixon had directed that until Halderman's notes were opened in 2007.

"Trump incited an armed resurrection" on 1/6. I'm highlighting how ridiculous that narrative is and how equally ridiculous it was for the media and the left in general to front it for 3 and a half years.

It was a ridiculous attempt, to be sure, because it was a last ditch attempt- a Hail Mary attempt, undertaken because all of his previous attempts had failed.

+The Stop The Count attempt, including what we saw in Detroit- a white mob summoned by Trump from Oakland County- attempting a Brooks Brothers reprise in Wayne County, beating on the doors of the counting center and shouting “Stop the Count”

+The lawsuit filed by Abbott in Texas against the state of Pennsylvania, attempting to throw out the votes of millions

+The 60+ Keystone Cops lawsuits filed by Rudy’s team of misbegotten lawyers (it hasn’t gone well for any of them ever since)

+ The failed “false electors” scheme, which attempted to substitute fake slates of electors for slates of electors legitimately elected by voters in several key states.

This last scheme would have succeeded if:

a. Pence had caved to Trump’s full court press on him….

In my opinion, the full court press was not so much aimed at having Pence recognize the false slates of electors….

As it was an effort (aided by scores of recalcitrant Republican congresscritters who were already fomenting and ultimately voting not to certify) to throw the matter into the House, where Republicans were ready (and salivating) to declare Trump the next President.

Had Pelosi not insisted in calling the House back into session on the sixth…. And had Mike Pence not denied the demand by the Secret Service to whisk him away to a “secret location” where he might not have been able to preside over the reconvened Senate…..(remember- Republicans already had a plan for this scenario)

January 6th might have had a very different outcome.

Yes…..The insurrectionists succeeded in disrupting the electoral count. But their ultimate failure came about because they failed, by only a matter of hours, to delay it long enough to succeed in throwing the matter to the House.

Would the American people have stood for such an outcome?

Stay tuned. The new and improved “Stop the Steal version 2” is coming to a neighborhood near you, beginning in 39 days.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.