Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 310
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    STL
    Posts
    11,596

    Would we have discussed Watergate hearings here?

    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    I gave you the link before. Go to 1:05. Willful ignorance is not reinforcing your right to an opinion. https://youtu.be/bC3_VFFJlSY

    "Of course the world now knows that the people who attacked the capitol on January 6 had many different types of weapons...pepper spray, knives, brass knuckles, tazers, body armor, gas masks, battons, blunt weapons. And those were just from the people who chose to go through the metal detectors."

    --some republican
    Ok, watched it.

    1. Someone reported ONE man with an AR to the police.

    No report that the police themselves saw it.

    2. Cops saw idiots at that location with pistols on hip and in tree.

    That’s not unlike a lot of other rally’s. The question I have is we’re they spotted on the Capitol steps? or inside the Capitol building? That’s were it would be a crime.

    Still, only talking about a handful of people, and no shots fired.

    To me, to me, in America, with the second amendment, open carry and all that shit, “armed insurrection” requires those weapons to be at least be brandished. Or at least be spotted inside the Capitol or on the steps. And more than just a few morons.

    Writing history in stone, to be seen by generations, calling this an “armed insurrection” is a disservice to our country. My opinion. But if you want to fry these guys, and even Trump, go ahead. There’s enough for that.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In your Dreams
    Posts
    567
    It's your "how things look to me" that's the problem. Looking where I was looking in the news, there were 100's of armed people in the mob that trump invited to participate in an insurrection.
    Seeker of Truth. Dispenser of Wisdom. Protector of the Weak. Avenger of Evil.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    20,392
    Quote Originally Posted by bodywhomper View Post
    I understand all of that, but my question was how did trump and friends that hatched this plan in mid-December think it would play out successfully? Like Jan 7, there’d likely be dead lawmakers and their staff, a headless VP, armed oath keepers and proud boys “holding” the capital complex, and an uncertified election.

    In my mind, next step would have been that 25th amendment would be invoked, next in line takes over, army/NG called in, possibly more death and destruction, then?….

    Regarding armed people at the rally, the leaders of the heavily armed parts of the capital attack did not attend the rally. The doc filmmakers that was with those guys testified about this in the first hearing: they all went out and had tacos during the rally.
    The way Trump hoped it would play out is that the certification would have been stopped, Pence would have reversed himself declared that there was too much doubt in the 5 close states and would have accepted alternate slates of electors. With competing sets of electors and the outcome in the Electoral College unclear the election would have been decided in the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote and where the GOP controls most of the state delegations. The hope was that the SCOTUS would stay out of it--taking the position that the election is up to the states (the opposite of the position it took in Bush v Gore but consistency has never been a characteristic of Supreme Court decisions. And look at the news today about the N Carolina redistricting case the Court has agreed to take on next session.)

    The goal of the invasion was not to physically take over the Capitol and control the government by force--the way it is in most coups we are familiar with. It was to create enough disruption of the electoral process to enable a Trump victory on a pseudo-legal basis. You have to understand Jan 6 not as an isolated event but as part of the overall strategy, delusional and far-fetched as it was. But not completely farfetched--147 republican congresspeople voted to not accept the counts in AZ and PA. In 2024 if the GOP holds the Senate and the House it is quite possible that a Democrat could win the popular vote in enough states to win the Electoral college vote and still be denied the presidency.

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,701
    In March 2022, 49-year-old Texan Guy Reffitt, was convicted (among other charges) for being unlawfully present on Capitol grounds while possessing a firearm and transporting firearms during civil disorder.A Department of Justice indictment from January 2021 also states that Christopher Alberts, Maryland, was found carrying a Taurus G2C semi-automatic handgun on Capitol grounds on January 6.


    Off-duty Drug Enforcement Administration agent Mark Sami Ibrahim, 32, was also indicted by a grand jury for bringing a firearm within the United States Capitol and its grounds.
    In an article for Newsweek, Nick Suplina and Justin Wagner of Everytown for Gun Safety said they had identified "12 individuals allegedly tied to the events of Jan. 6 who were arrested in Washington, D.C., and charged with firearms offenses."
    A U.S. Capitol Police intelligence division report also found posts on now defunct blog thedonald.win in the lead-up to Jan. 6, which, the report said, contained "several comments [that] promote confronting members of Congress and carrying firearms during the protest."


    Further comments on the site included"Bring guns. It's now or never" and "Don't cuck out. This is do or die. Bring your guns."
    But while there is clear evidence showing that firearms were indeed brought into the January 6 march, the underlying claim itself is somewhat of a red herring, because it implies that possession of firearms is somehow a condition for an insurrection.
    American politics expert Professor Angelia Wilson of the University of Manchester, told Newsweek that insurrection is an act of violent resistance against a civil authority or government, that may involve any weapon or hand-to-hand combat.”

    https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...-1715326?amp=1

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    In 2024 if the GOP holds the Senate and the House it is quite possible that a Democrat could win the popular vote in enough states to win the Electoral college vote and still be denied the presidency.
    Right. And this isn’t crazy speculation or conspiracy, it’s happening out in the open for anyone to see, if they so choose.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Alta
    Posts
    2,062

    Would we have discussed Watergate hearings here?

    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    The way Trump hoped it would play out is that the certification would have been stopped, Pence would have reversed himself declared that there was too much doubt in the 5 close states and would have accepted alternate slates of electors. With competing sets of electors and the outcome in the Electoral College unclear the election would have been decided in the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote and where the GOP controls most of the state delegations. The hope was that the SCOTUS would stay out of it--taking the position that the election is up to the states (the opposite of the position it took in Bush v Gore but consistency has never been a characteristic of Supreme Court decisions. And look at the news today about the N Carolina redistricting case the Court has agreed to take on next session.)

    The goal of the invasion was not to physically take over the Capitol and control the government by force--the way it is in most coups we are familiar with. It was to create enough disruption of the electoral process to enable a Trump victory on a pseudo-legal basis. You have to understand Jan 6 not as an isolated event but as part of the overall strategy, delusional and far-fetched as it was. But not completely farfetched--147 republican congresspeople voted to not accept the counts in AZ and PA. In 2024 if the GOP holds the Senate and the House it is quite possible that a Democrat could win the popular vote in enough states to win the Electoral college vote and still be denied the presidency.
    Very good explanation. For the not as dumb as Trump fascists like De Santis and Hawley this was a perfect test run. With the added advantage that they now know without a doubt that the base and GQP hierarchy are 100% on board.

    SCOTUS would probably follow their lead. Military protecting democracy is our only hope.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,397
    Cono, in American English "arms" is short for armaments, not necessarily firearms.

    Some further reading in case you're doubting OG's description:

    1876 gave a basic outline. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1876...ntial_election

    Leading to the Electoral Count Act:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Act

    The fact that Trump was calling around to try and keep the fraud effort going during the insurrection shows how the expected violence (predicted by his chief of staff 4 days ahead, among others) was put to use.

    I don't know if anyone wanted a case before the SCOTUS, but just in case it came to that, a third of the court is now occupied by members of George W. Bush's legal team. (It was never about Roe.)

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,558
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    The way Trump hoped it would play out is that the certification would have been stopped, Pence would have reversed himself declared that there was too much doubt in the 5 close states and would have accepted alternate slates of electors. With competing sets of electors and the outcome in the Electoral College unclear the election would have been decided in the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote and where the GOP controls most of the state delegations. The hope was that the SCOTUS would stay out of it--taking the position that the election is up to the states (the opposite of the position it took in Bush v Gore but consistency has never been a characteristic of Supreme Court decisions. And look at the news today about the N Carolina redistricting case the Court has agreed to take on next session.)

    The goal of the invasion was not to physically take over the Capitol and control the government by force--the way it is in most coups we are familiar with. It was to create enough disruption of the electoral process to enable a Trump victory on a pseudo-legal basis. You have to understand Jan 6 not as an isolated event but as part of the overall strategy, delusional and far-fetched as it was. But not completely farfetched--147 republican congresspeople voted to not accept the counts in AZ and PA. In 2024 if the GOP holds the Senate and the House it is quite possible that a Democrat could win the popular vote in enough states to win the Electoral college vote and still be denied the presidency.
    Yes. I understand all of that, and that disruption of the electors process was A goal, However, given Flynn's taking the 5th to questions about peaceful transfer and that he was in the room in mid-december (Dec 18?) when the jan 6 plans were solidified and fuckface sent out his tweet, Meadows' apparent prediction that it may turn into violence, trumps apparent willingness to let the VP be caught and hung (i'm sure i'm missing things on my list here), it seems that there was willingness (and intent) by the planners (from the start), including trump, to allow for a physical take over of the Capitol and gov by force and the execution of those occuping the building. I cannot remember hearing or reading about any testimony from anybody about premediated plans to have people stand down.

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    11,612


    This thread is just as much of a dumpster fire as the poli-ass one. Maybe more so.

    Here's the problem with using the word insurrection: it infers a revolt or uprising against a government, ruler, etc. The implied morality or righteousness is dependent on the motive, outcome, and who gets to write the history. The Revolutionary War was absolutely an insurrection.

    This was a riot that was part and parcel of an attempted coup by a sitting president to remain in power despite being defeated in a fair & democratic election. The president and/or his staff, family and supporters engaged in a conspiracy to commit election fraud via phony electors, "finding" fictitious votes, and other non-violent shenanigans.

    As a distraction, back-up plan, or just an attempt at reality television, the president cheerled, attempted to aid & abet, and even direct the capitol stormers. Live tv made their intentions clear. Change the election results through intimidation and violence - up to the point of threatening to kill the speaker and the vice president.

    What transpired was certainly an insurrection, but easily rose to sedition and even attempted treason.

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    16,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Cono Este View Post
    When we’re all dead and buried, how history is told matters.




    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Until you study historiography

    It’s quite interesting how history changes

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,397
    The term "insurrection" is what the 14th amendment uses. Others are also applicable, but "insurrection" is relevant for that reason.

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    The term "insurrection" is what the 14th amendment uses. Others are also applicable, but "insurrection" is relevant for that reason.
    Good point.

    Section 3.

    No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    11,612
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    The term "insurrection" is what the 14th amendment uses. Others are also applicable, but "insurrection" is relevant for that reason.
    Of course. My point being the semantics debate in this thread was like pointing out that the engines on the titanic were a few hours past their maintenance interval. Shit was far beyond that.

    eta: really, I'm just sick of all the partisan normalization of stuff that's beyond the pale.

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post


    This thread is just as much of a dumpster fire as the poli-ass one. Maybe more so.

    Here's the problem with using the word insurrection: it infers a revolt or uprising against a government, ruler, etc. The implied morality or righteousness is dependent on the motive, outcome, and who gets to write the history. The Revolutionary War was absolutely an insurrection.

    This was a riot that was part and parcel of an attempted coup by a sitting president to remain in power despite being defeated in a fair & democratic election. The president and/or his staff, family and supporters engaged in a conspiracy to commit election fraud via phony electors, "finding" fictitious votes, and other non-violent shenanigans.

    As a distraction, back-up plan, or just an attempt at reality television, the president cheerled, attempted to aid & abet, and even direct the capitol stormers. Live tv made their intentions clear. Change the election results through intimidation and violence - up to the point of threatening to kill the speaker and the vice president.

    What transpired was certainly an insurrection, but easily rose to sedition and even attempted treason.
    he should be in jail. i understand the justice department's reticence. it makes the US look like a south american banana republic throwing the previous president in jail. trump has done a lot of damage to the institution of the presidency

    the republican party has a lot to answer for.

    and now roe is overturned. a fifty year attack on women's rights. that said, the topic of dumpster fires, the democratic party was incredibly lame by not passing legislation in Congress to guarantee a woman's right to an abortion. leaving it to roe in hindsight was disastrous.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    in a freezer in Italy
    Posts
    5,333
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
    ...and even attempted treason.
    I'm not sure there's any such thing as attempted treason. If you attempt it, it's treason.

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    10,089
    Quote Originally Posted by DBdude View Post
    <snip> it makes the US look like a south american banana republic
    Pretty sure we're past the "looking like" stage.

  17. #142
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    11,612
    And here's the thing, I don't think the country is really 50/50 divided on everything, but voters on each side are definitely afraid of giving the other a supermajority.

    Like the old "I'll vote for a ham sandwich before that guy!"

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    关你屁事
    Posts
    7,280
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Pretty sure we're past the "looking like" stage.
    yeah the ingrained fear of “leftists” that will countenance most anything to deter and destroy “leftists” is what they were

  19. #144
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    11,612
    Quote Originally Posted by ötzi View Post
    I'm not sure there's any such thing as attempted treason. If you attempt it, it's treason.
    Good point. I was trying for an homage to George Bluth


  20. #145
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by DBdude View Post
    it makes the US look like a south american banana republic
    I've been hoping for some sign that the USA isn't a failed state. Jan 6th and the events following leads me to a belief that we're a nation just circling the bowl. The people I interact with are rational and contentious people. Even here on TGR behind the webz, probably 7/8ths are grounded in reality and hold centralist views.

    But, it doesn't much of a drive to find loser nutters living in la la land of grievance and delusion. A few clicks of the mouse and people believe the world is flat and there's pedo-cabal lizard ppl. It's not like there is a majority of them, but the lesson I'm learning is - a minority critical mass of rejects that can fuck it all up. I think we're way past that mark too. Angry, poorly educated, willfully ignorant, grievance driven, well armed shit birds being drummed up by bad actors in leadership and official roles.

    It's sad to witness.

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlMega View Post
    I've been hoping for some sign that the USA isn't a failed state. Jan 6th and the events following leads me to a belief that we're a nation just circling the bowl. The people I interact with are rational and contentious people. Even here on TGR behind the webz, probably 7/8ths are grounded in reality and hold centralist views.

    But, it doesn't much of a drive to find loser nutters living in la la land of grievance and delusion. A few clicks of the mouse and people believe the world is flat and there's pedo-cabal lizard ppl. It's not like there is a majority of them, but the lesson I'm learning is - a minority critical mass of rejects that can fuck it all up. I think we're way past that mark too. Angry, poorly educated, willfully ignorant, grievance driven, well armed shit birds being drummed up by bad actors in leadership and official roles.

    It's sad to witness.
    70 percent of republicans polled believe that trump won the last election

    that is shocking

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    in a freezer in Italy
    Posts
    5,333
    The only question about any of this that interests me is what to do now. And I'm clueless on it. Anybody?

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    10,089
    Quote Originally Posted by ötzi View Post
    The only question about any of this that interests me is what to do now. And I'm clueless on it. Anybody?
    Leave?

  24. #149
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    Leave?
    That might be worth another thread. I'm approaching year 2 on a 4 year plan to arrange my affairs and situation so I can reasonably expect to enjoy my remaining years with stability and fulfillment. Or put another way: avoid unnecessary bullshit. I'll leave that for other people.

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dystopia
    Posts
    16,849
    It’s so awesome that we can talk polyass anti drumpf under the guise of Richard Millhouse Nixon.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •