A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

[gorfias]

Lets for the same of argument assume its true. Lets humor you.

Lets pretend the Democrats wanted Trump to try and overthrow the election and send a mob at congress. If this is so then why on earth would Trump give them that? Why would he willingly give them a weapon to use against him and cripple the credibility of the Republican party?

I wonder why he did a lot of what he did and said. He had to know he was leading with his chin.

I've heard jokes about the idea of Republicans rioting. In theory, they just don't do it. (I'm independent now). So maybe he thought he'd get what he asked for (a peaceful protest). Some think he did all of this just to raise money. Claim he was robbed and he needs your money to help prove it.

 

[Agema]

I wonder why he did a lot of what he did and said. He had to know he was leading with his chin.

So, I know there's all that stuff about not diagnosing people without a proper assessment, but Trump surely has narcissistic personality disorder, and one of the most strongest cases you are ever likely to encounter. Firstly, people like that will think very differently from you and I: I don't think you can make assumptions that they have the same sort of reasoning. People like that are not really in control: they self-sabotage, because they can't help themselves.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

From what I've seen, Trump's speeches fall well within protected parameters. I understand Nancy Pelosi herself was responsible for Capital security, knew of this gathering but did not appropriately fortify the building. There are un indited co-conspirators I think may well be FBI that may have entrapped some of the trespassers.

If you really want to go into conspiracy land, some are arguing the latest suicide of a capital policeman may have been murder as he might have had testimony counter to the narrative that this was worse than 9/11! (OK, even I am not on board with that one... but it is out there).

My concern is that at all times, the Left may have wanted this to happen to give them something to talk about and further demonize the political opponents. I have to hope we're almost done with this so we can get on to the work of fixing our country.

God damn that's a stupid conspiracy theory, but ok, lets go with it.

Let's assume that the the left wanted the Capital to be attacked, and wanted the insurrection to happen, and so purposefully had less security there.

So what?

The Trump supporters still attacked the Capital building of their own free will. No one made them go there and attack the building. Regardless of how much security there was or wasn't, or should have been, the Trump supporters still chose to attack the building of their own free will while chanting that they want to hang Mike Pence and literally building gallows to do it.

Not doing enough to stop an attack you may expect is not the same as making people attack you.

Even if the left wanted the capital to be attacked and "allowed" it to happen, it still wouldn't have happened if the Trump Republicans didn't actively chose to do it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Its worth noting that ''not my president'' does not mean the same as ''not THE president''. And its not like Trump ever had much interest in reaching across the isle and compromising with the Democrats. Its not like Obama who neutered his own healthcare bill to appease Republicans only to have the Republicans still reject it with a borderline fanatic zeal. There are leaders who try their best but who are not accepted by their legislative body and get blocked as a result, but Trump is not one of those. Trump himself refused to work with congress.

I mean, I feel it's my duty as An Old to point out that "not my president" as old enough to be satirized in King of the Hill back when Clinton beat Dole.

"Not my president" is old news.

 

[Avnger]

God damn that's a stupid conspiracy theory, but ok, lets go with it.

Remember that you're talking to someone who still thinks the election was stolen (because Tucker told him so)...

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I understand Nancy Pelosi herself was responsible for Capital security....

Except that you're wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...itol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

 

[Cheetodust]

Except that you're wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...itol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

I mean you probably didn't need to quote Snip, that response works for everything he just said.

 

[Agema]

From what I've seen, Trump's speeches fall well within protected parameters.

True. On the other hand, whilst some of the rhetoric might have been legally acceptable, it was also unwise (e.g. "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."). A lot of riots have occurred not because the speakers have urged the crowd to bring fire and destruction to their enemies, but just because they have riled them up. A lot of giving speeches is to induce emotion and inspire. If you have a crowd in front you who are angry and fearful, and you inflame their passions and tell them to march on someone, you are absolutely inviting trouble.

What bothers me more is that after he went back to the White House and sat watching the riot on TV, not only did Trump see the unfolding debacle and appear to be untroubled, there are reports he was enjoying it. Backing this up, he made no effort to intervene and de-escalate, apart from one very late and extraordinarily weak statement. And this is what I mean by self-sabotage. A rational person would have realised how badly this was going to turn out both for the nation and him personally, but that vindictive narcissist was intoxicated by the idea of having people who feed his ego wreak harm on those who hurt his ego. The next day of course the high had passed, and there's the hangover: Trump realises just how much ordure he's in, so he throws the rioters under the bus.

I understand Nancy Pelosi herself was responsible for Capital security, knew of this gathering but did not appropriately fortify the building.

If we also want to argue that FDR won the Battle of Midway rather than Chester Nimitz, sure.

Obviously the operational control of Congressional security is handled by trained and experienced police/security professionals, with advice from wider intelligence and law agencies. Unless someone can point to evidence of Pelosi (and/or McConnell, who had equal authority to Pelosi) countermanding the recommendations of these professionals, this should be assumed to be nothing but misdirection.

 

[gorfias]

True. On the other hand, whilst some of the rhetoric might have been legally acceptable, it was also unwise (e.g. "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."). A lot of riots have occurred not because the speakers have urged the crowd to bring fire and destruction to their enemies, but just because they have riled them up. A lot of giving speeches is to induce emotion and inspire. If you have a crowd in front you who are angry and fearful, and you inflame their passions and tell them to march on someone, you are absolutely inviting trouble.

What bothers me more is that after he went back to the White House and sat watching the riot on TV, not only did Trump see the unfolding debacle and appear to be untroubled, there are reports he was enjoying it. Backing this up, he made no effort to intervene and de-escalate, apart from one very late and extraordinarily weak statement. And this is what I mean by self-sabotage. A rational person would have realised how badly this was going to turn out both for the nation and him personally, but that vindictive narcissist was intoxicated by the idea of having people who feed his ego wreak harm on those who hurt his ego. The next day of course the high had passed, and there's the hangover: Trump realises just how much ordure he's in, so he throws the rioters under the bus.



If we also want to argue that FDR won the Battle of Midway rather than Chester Nimitz, sure.

Obviously the operational control of Congressional security is handled by trained and experienced police/security professionals, with advice from wider intelligence and law agencies. Unless someone can point to evidence of Pelosi (and/or McConnell, who had equal authority to Pelosi) countermanding the recommendations of these professionals, this should be assumed to be nothing but misdirection.

I've heard a ton of things about what Trump has said and done, ie, calling our troops suckers, that end up being non-sense. Still, I agree with you, the guy does lead with his chin.
Had Midway been lost? They'd be asking FDR what happened. I want Pelosi asked the same.

Except that you're wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...itol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

Your own link says you're wrong. I didn't write she is solely responsible, but, from your link, "No, Capitol security is not only Pelosi’s responsibility, but she bears some".

Except that you're wrong. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...itol-security-not-only-pelosis-responsibilit/

Your own link says you're wrong. I didn't write she is solely responsible, but, from your link, "No, Capitol security is not only Pelosi’s responsibility, but she bears some".

God damn that's a stupid conspiracy theory, but ok, lets go with it.

Let's assume that the the left wanted the Capital to be attacked, and wanted the insurrection to happen, and so purposefully had less security there.

So what?

The Trump supporters still attacked the Capital building of their own free will. No one made them go there and attack the building. Regardless of how much security there was or wasn't, or should have been, the Trump supporters still chose to attack the building of their own free will while chanting that they want to hang Mike Pence and literally building gallows to do it.

Not doing enough to stop an attack you may expect is not the same as making people attack you.

Even if the left wanted the capital to be attacked and "allowed" it to happen, it still wouldn't have happened if the Trump Republicans didn't actively chose to do it.

Entrapment matters. It is a defense. I don't know if anyone will chose it or not.
And it matters what is happening now. There is historical precident for this. That the great trespass is being used as a basis for demonizing every Republican. Can you imagine if we started canceling people for supporting BLM and ANTIFA, even just a little?

 

[Buyetyen]

Can you imagine if we started canceling people for supporting BLM and ANTIFA, even just a little?

That assumes the right wing hasn't been trying to do that for years already.

 

[happyninja42]

LOL. Your post reminds me of a real world case. A woman intentionally crashes her car into a bus because... real case now... she believes she is Batman and in so doing, she is saving the world. She is found not-guilty of criminal charges against her due to insanity.

EDIT: ITMT, since Hinkley was found not guilty due to insanity of attempted murder of Ronald Reagan, there is a new charge called, "Guilty but mentally ill.'



You really shouldn't applaud such a display of "know nothingism".

So you agree that the only way for your idiot brigade to get off, is for them to declare that the thing they are championing is fucking insane? Well, we finally agree on something then. You don't get to play both sides, and have it be a legit concern, that they are honestly justified in breaking into a government building because of...and then try and plead insanity on the other end.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

They do this with literally every death now. No tragedy goes unexploited with these people, not a single goddamn one.


Ongoing case for disbarring conspiracy-fueling lawyers looks promising. And having watched the last live stream, the judge's impatience for their disruptive behaviour was becoming clear.

 

[Buyetyen]

They do this with literally every death now. No tragedy goes unexploited with these people, not a single goddamn one.

Fucking ghouls.

 

[Agema]

I've heard a ton of things about what Trump has said and done, ie, calling our troops suckers, that end up being non-sense.

This is not so much nonsense as it is hearsay. It was claimed by reporters as being said to whichever one of the ex-military guys Trump had running government for a while. This ex-general has not publicly commented as far as I am aware, so it's the word of the unreliable against the word of one of the world's pre-eminent liars: so anyone's guess.

But then, I also find it quite credible. Firstly, Trump of course dodged the draft by paying a doctor to make up some health condition ("bone spurs"). Furthermore, like I said, Trump is a narcissist: pathologically selfish and lacking in empathy. He is exactly the sort of person who would not comprehend why people would put their lives on the line for their country.

Had Midway been lost? They'd be asking FDR what happened. I want Pelosi asked the same.

I'm sure they would want answers, and as president it would be his responsibility to explain. However, that's not the same thing as it being his fault. For instance, it is the responsibility of a janitor to keep a toilet clean, but it doesn't mean that if someone urinated all over the floor then the janitor did it.

That the great trespass is being used as a basis for demonizing every Republican. Can you imagine if we started canceling people for supporting BLM and ANTIFA, even just a little?

The reason it's a powerful means to demonise Republicans is there are so damn few of them that appear to recognise or admit how bad it was. Trump literally spent months attempting to undermine a democratic election, and then set a mob on Congress. Apart from the inherent threat of autocracy of that, it made the USA look like a banana republic.

So many Republicans are so pro-Trump that they aren't prepared to hold him to account for his misdeeds: and if they won't, Republicans politicians who rely on their votes won't either. We saw this in practice in Jan/Feb, when the Republicans made very strong comments against Trump - but when it became clear the Republican base were on Trump's side, all that willingness to sanction Trump melted away. Instead, they sanctioned Trump's critics within their own party.

 

[Silvanus]

Can you imagine if we started canceling people for supporting BLM and ANTIFA, even just a little?

You mean like when President Trump stated that NFL players should be fired for kneeling?

The Republicans are some of the most censorious people out there, extraordinarily intolerant of others' rights to express themselves.

 

[gorfias]

This is not so much nonsense as it is hearsay. It was claimed by reporters as being said to whichever one of the ex-military guys Trump had running government for a while. This ex-general has not publicly commented as far as I am aware, so it's the word of the unreliable against the word of one of the world's pre-eminent liars: so anyone's guess.

But then, I also find it quite credible. Firstly, Trump of course dodged the draft by paying a doctor to make up some health condition ("bone spurs"). Furthermore, like I said, Trump is a narcissist: pathologically selfish and lacking in empathy. He is exactly the sort of person who would not comprehend why people would put their lives on the line for their country.



I'm sure they would want answers, and as president it would be his responsibility to explain. However, that's not the same thing as it being his fault. For instance, it is the responsibility of a janitor to keep a toilet clean, but it doesn't mean that if someone urinated all over the floor then the janitor did it.



The reason it's a powerful means to demonise Republicans is there are so damn few of them that appear to recognise or admit how bad it was. Trump literally spent months attempting to undermine a democratic election, and then set a mob on Congress. Apart from the inherent threat of autocracy of that, it made the USA look like a banana republic.

So many Republicans are so pro-Trump that they aren't prepared to hold him to account for his misdeeds: and if they won't, Republicans politicians who rely on their votes won't either. We saw this in practice in Jan/Feb, when the Republicans made very strong comments against Trump - but when it became clear the Republican base were on Trump's side, all that willingness to sanction Trump melted away. Instead, they sanctioned Trump's critics within their own party.

I think it was anti-Trumper John Bolton that was there when Trump supposedly called US troops suckers and says it didnt' happen. They made it up.

A boss is responsible for the failures of his/her subordinates. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior#:~:text=A legal doctrine, most commonly,of the employment or agency.

Everything Trump did and said does fall under protected speech. Others have done worse without repercussion. IE, AOC called our illegal immigration detention centers, "concentration camps" and then a nut went and tried to murder people at one. What would you want him sanctioned about? How?

You mean like when President Trump stated that NFL players should be fired for kneeling?

The Republicans are some of the most censorious people out there, extraordinarily intolerant of others' rights to express themselves.

And they're wrong too. But the power, and the danger, is from the left. They control our schools, our media and largely, our government and deep state. They really are in a position to cause harm.

So you agree that the only way for your idiot brigade to get off, is for them to declare that the thing they are championing is fucking insane? Well, we finally agree on something then. You don't get to play both sides, and have it be a legit concern, that they are honestly justified in breaking into a government building because of...and then try and plead insanity on the other end.

 

[Buyetyen]

And they're wrong too. But the power, and the danger, is from the left. They control our schools, our media and largely, our government and deep state. They really are in a position to cause harm.

Has it ever occurred to you ask us leftists what we think, believe and want?

 

[Seanchaidh]

And they're wrong too. But the power, and the danger, is from the left. They control our schools, our media and largely, our government and deep state.

damn, I wish

no seriously, this is utterly ludicrous

 

[BrawlMan]

I think it was anti-Trumper John Bolton that was there when Trump supposedly called US troops suckers and says it didnt' happen. They made it up.

A boss is responsible for the failures of his/her subordinates. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior#:~:text=A legal doctrine, most commonly,of the employment or agency.

Everything Trump did and said does fall under protected speech. Others have done worse without repercussion. IE, AOC called our illegal immigration detention centers, "concentration camps" and then a nut went and tried to murder people at one. What would you want him sanctioned about? How?


And they're wrong too. But the power, and the danger, is from the left. They control our schools, our media and largely, our government and deep state. They really are in a position to cause harm.



View attachment 4195

You naive man. I take that back, this is beyond naive and going into straight delirious. Don't bother responding back, because I'll be ignoring it. Learn to think for yourself dude, cuz you're clearly not. You're eating their bullshit that they've been feeding you in many others in that same circle.

 

[Agema]

I think it was anti-Trumper John Bolton that was there when Trump supposedly called US troops suckers and says it didnt' happen. They made it up.

No, we have literally no idea what's true. Bolton says he didn't hear Trump say it in a particular situation, but quite explicitly leaves open the possibility that he did say it at some other point.

And I did get my reports mixed up. Trump is reputed to said to John Kelly that he didn't understand why people served in war because he didn't understand why it was in their benefit to. And then there's calling John McCain a loser for being captured (thus implicitly all other POWs). And apparently his classmates back from his days in academy said he regularly disrespected the US military back then. And, you know, other stuff.

There is a lot of smoke. I think it's a bit unsafe to just dismiss there being a fire.

A boss is responsible for the failures of his/her subordinates. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior#:~:text=A legal doctrine, most commonly,of the employment or agency.

So you'd argue that every time a US soldier has raped a civilian, the president at the time (as commander in chief of the armed forces) is personally liable?

Everything Trump did and said does fall under protected speech. Others have done worse without repercussion. IE, AOC called our illegal immigration detention centers, "concentration camps" and then a nut went and tried to murder people at one. What would you want him sanctioned about? How?

I do not see what is worse about describing an immigrant detention centre as a "concentration camp" than rousing a bunch of protestors with fighting talk and then directing them to march on the target of their ire.

I don't doubt it is "protected speech". But there's a big difference between whether you can say something and whether you should: "protected" does not mean "appropriate" or "responsible". Severe irresponsibility is a very disturbing trait for a president to have.