Not what I'm saying at all. Are you arguing that several hundred idiots thought they were actually going to overturn the election simply by... walking around inside the building? I know I'm admitting I think they are idiots, but I don't believe anyone is that idiotic that they thought that was a likely outcome. Furthermore, I don't believe it would be reasonable for anyone to believe they could believe such a thing. So if overturning the election wasn't a realistic outcome or even expected by them, they couldn't have failed. So what were they doing there? Protesting like idiots... just like they were groomed to believe was a just action if you disagree with something. And that is the crux of the issue. When an argument is made, the most important element isn't the specific elements of the specific argument but the construction of the argument. thus it can be applied to different situations and still be a good argument. Now, the trick is that it could apply to situations you don't like, but are forced to accept for consistency. and being reasonable requires consistency. Not being consistent is the definition of hypocrisy and thus unreasonable. So what we have here is an environment in which one political side spent a year advocating for protests and defending violent protests in which many more lives were lost and billions in property damage was suffered. these were clearly advocated and championed as acceptable behaviors as long as the protesters believed they were just -- not that they were just and could rationally justify their actions just that that they believed they were. The logical construction of that position would validate the Jan 6th protesters as well, and to condemn them is to apply the logic used to defend the BLM protests inconsistently. And which side of the political spectrum is labeling these yahoos insurrectionists and ranting and raving that there was a real threat to our democracy? The same side that defended the same behavior when it was directed at something they wanted to happen. That hypocrisy is purely politically driven, which is driving these hearings and the joke of a television event. These idiots were merely being disruptive and were gotten under control in a short time. There was no significant resistance because they weren't intent at stopping the election results at all costs. Should they be punished and locked up? Absolutely. Were they a real threat to the nation? of course not. Was the nation in real danger of democracy dying? No. To even intimate such is politically motivated.
They were a huge threat to the nation. Not because they were going to accomplish anything that day but because through them, Trump broke the 200+ year precedent of peacefully conceding a lost presidential election. (Even Buchanan conceded peacefully when he lost to Lincoln, the states seceded independently of him.) Which permanently imperils our democracy/republic/whatever you want to call it going forward.
You're going to have to explain to me what the threat that existed was by simply not peacefully conceding. I'm more than happy to concede my viewpoint has flaws if I have an understanding of what that threat is that I don't see.
I think the biggest thing is that its well known at this point that it went beyond the average trump-humping idiots at the capitol that you've focused on, with the president himself involved, scheming with members of Congress & even the Supreme Court fortunately there were some adults in the room. Like Mike Pence... imagine though if the Vice President wasn't a man of integrity ... it woulda been ugly, well uglier
Has it been proven that trump knew they were going to do that/was behind it etc? I’m honestly asking because I don’t know, and haven’t been following that closely.
If there was actual evidence of such that would be an issue, but there isn’t. Nothing Trump said even remotely elevates to the threat of leading an insurrection to take over of the capital to stop the election results from being certified. He certainly wanted people out there to be a nuisance and voice their opposition in a desperate attempt to stop it because he delusion-ally believed there was fraud and could prevail in his claim. But, remember, protests are patriotic we were told. It's not even ambiguous.
Imagine the Republicans win the midterms this year, particularly in, say Pennsylvania. Then in 2024, we get a Biden vs. Trump rematch, and inflation has calmed down enough that it's a very close election and comes down to Pennsylvania. Both sides allege voter fraud/suppression, and both candidates declare victory. Biden probably won, but nobody knows for sure. Pennsylvania's new Republican governor sends a Trump slate of electors to Congress, and the Democratic minority sends a Biden slate. On party lines, the Supreme Court says Trump is the rightful winner, but the White House finds some loophole in the ruling. Like Trump did with Pence in 2020, Biden urges Harris to throw out the Trump slate when she governs the January 6 proceedings. This time though, she listens and declares Biden the winner. The Republican House says the results are illegitimate, and the Senate even though technically under Republican control sides with Biden because of Romney and a couple others. And the end result is a civil war because there's no peaceful way this can end without Biden or Trump conceding, and neither one will. I understand this is a made-up story, but there's nothing in it that's implausible. Which ultimately is why it's a terrible thing that Trump did, because it greatly increases the likelihood of something like this happening, whether that's in 2024 or even decades from now. When Gore lost the 2000 election (and unlike Trump, he had legitimate reasons to believe he won), he was still the vice president and had to preside over January 6, 2001. And he swiftly shut down any talk of messing with the proceedings because he knew that you don't mess with peacefully conceding elections. Well Trump did because he's incapable of accepting defeat in anything, and going forward, we're all worse off for it.
But in your example every party has their own agency and makes decisions based on their own motivations, independent of what happened four years prior. You can argue Trump set precedent by not conceding but he did not set a precedent that would justify Harris' decision in your example; in fact Pence set precedent to the contrary. Harris would set the precedent in your example that could be considered the threat to democracy.
In the story, Trump set the precedent for Biden to request Harris to throw out the Trump slate. Not that it really matters though. I constructed the story to try to make neither side seem like the bad guys, but if you think Harris is the villain here, I could come up with an equally plausible story where I change the details a bit to make the Republicans seem like more of the bad guys. Maybe make it where Biden clearly won the Pennsylvania vote, but the Pennsylvania Republicans send Trump electors to Congress anyway, as Trump had wanted state officials to do in 2020. What really matters is that we wouldn't even be having these conversations if Trump had just conceded peacefully like everyone before him.
I can only address the story you proposed. I agree, Trump is responsible for the protesters he called to give him support in his deluded attempt to hold his office, but if they were simply being described accurately for what they were we also wouldn’t be having this discussion. But we are having this discussion because the event is being called an insurrection and the actions hysterically being exaggerated solely for political purposes.
Each hearing has been focused on a specific issue. One day was people telling Trump he lost. We got a barrage from his advisors, investigators lawyers etc. All telling him that he lost. Trump had an investigator who investigated every conspiracy you can imagine and 1 by 1 went down the list and told the president item by item why each conspiracy ended up being untrue. The point of that hearing was to show that Trump knew he lost. Obviously knowing you lost an election isn’t a crime. Coupled with the other events, hearing under no uncertain terms that he lost, it puts a new light on his other actions.
I think they're calling it an "attack" now. First time I have ever seen an attack by fat white people holding cellphones above their heads. Unless you count that unfortunate Weird Al Yankovic concert.
I’m still not seeing where he directly told people to storm the capital. If he’s guilty of that , based on believing conspiracies, then there are more than a few politicians that are directly, indirectly responsible for the 18 months of riots and destruction that happened. That was encouraged too.
Of course. That was a different day. My breakdown was of the “Trump knew he lost” day. They have a day where they laid out his manipulation of his followers. If you want to know what was turned up during the investigation then watch for yourself. It’s only about 90 minutes of TV (per hearing). It’s completely watchable and not what you’d expect of a GVT hearing. There’s no special effects or manipulative editing as implied by them hiring a producer to put it together. If you don’t watch, I’m sure there will plenty of people to tell you their summaries regardless if watched themselves.
Imagine focusing on a fake insurrection while the actual financial collapse of the United States is underway. Good distraction I guess, from the nightmare that is about to hit the USA.
Yeah I mean Trump lost by 8 million votes and like 100 electoral college votes. It wasn’t even close. Just shut the fuck up and go home to your island that you stiffed every contractor to build but it’s like I said when he took office, everything he’s ever lead ends in failure and a shit load of lawsuits, why would the presidency be any different?
