US political crisis

[Kroffe]

It looked to me they were afraid of the potential consequences, this would have been one of the biggest and most complex cases ever, I can understand why they didn't want to touch it though.

Complex?
You do know Trumps lawyers were not even arguing that any fraud had taken place (when in court that is, on twitter is another story)
The cases did not get thrown out of the lower courts because they were complex, they were thrown out because they didnt have a leg to stand on.
Why do you think that suddenly would change if the supreme court looked at the cases?
Would the lawyers suddenly start arguing that fraud had taken place? Would they suddenly have evidence to show?

That they were too afraid to look at the cases is a weird interpretation that goes against all the facts surrounding the cases.

 

[Kroffe]

How do you know they didn't? I didn't watch much of it but each side gets 16 hours to present their case.

I didnt watch a second of it.
But if they had shown a video with just the "highlights" of trump inciting the crowd, im guessing that would be the video Bill would be complaining over and not grasping at straws with the video hes now talking about.

 

[mack341]

Complex?
You do know Trumps lawyers were not even arguing that any fraud had taken place (when in court that is, on twitter is another story)
The cases did not get thrown out of the lower courts because they were complex, they were thrown out because they didnt have a leg to stand on.
Why do you think that suddenly would change if the supreme court looked at the cases?
Would the lawyers suddenly start arguing that fraud had taken place? Would they suddenly have evidence to show?

That they were too afraid to look at the cases is a weird interpretation that goes against all the facts surrounding the cases.

I think you would need full proper audits to search for voter fraud, trump's lawyers were making 'paper' accusations and the judge was saying 'not proven, so hard luck.' There were lots of signed affidavits from witnesses etc..but no appetite from the courts [or perhaps legal precedent] to start delving into stuff...let's face it he had no chance, the system, rightly or wrongly, hates his guts or believes he's a con man or something, no way were they going to lift a finger to help prolong his stay in the oval office.

 

[sufferinsilence]

I think you would need full proper audits to search for voter fraud, trump's lawyers were making 'paper' accusations and the judge was saying 'not proven, so hard luck.' There were lots of signed affidavits from witnesses etc..but no appetite from the courts [or perhaps legal precedent] to start delving into stuff...let's face it he had no chance, the system, rightly or wrongly, hates his guts or believes he's a con man or something.

He's been a con man all his life, what changed?

 

[mack341]

It's so nice to be back in familiar surroundings!

 

[Kroffe]

I think you would need full proper audits to search for voter fraud, trump's lawyers were making 'paper' accusations and the judge was saying 'not proven, so hard luck.' There were lots of signed affidavits from witnesses etc..but no appetite from the courts [or perhaps legal precedent] to start delving into stuff...let's face it he had no chance, the system, rightly or wrongly, hates his guts or believes he's a con man or something, no way were they going to lift a finger to help prolong his stay in the oval office.

Well its hard to argue against "its all a conspiracy, he never had a chance because everyone hates him"

Imo its clear as day he tried and failed to steal the election.
Hell, Bernie even did a play-by-play on exactly what they were afraid Trump would do, and he still went ahead with it.
He spent months telling his supporters not to vote by mail, and then pretended to be surprised when the mail in votes were surprise surprise,, massively in favor of Biden.
Must be fraud.



The definiton of a con man is "a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true."
But no, Trump with his Qanon conspiracies, election conspiracies etc is not a con man....

 

[mack341]

The definiton of a con man is "a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true."

Biden has done a little bit himself over the years:

 

[Kroffe]

Biden has done a little bit himself over the years:

Is that why you think its ok for Trump?
I never got that way of thinking.
Two people doing wrong is worse than one person doing wrong, not better.

 

[mack341]

Is that why you think its ok for Trump?
I never got that way of thinking.
Two people doing wrong is worse than one person doing wrong, not better.

I was just about to log out but if we're talking about trump lying in bringing his election fraud cases, in every civil case a judge has to decide who is telling the truth out of the parties, and also where the truth lays; I think trump truly believes biden's win was fraud assisted or unfair in some way, so I don't think he has been wilfully and knowingly lying about the election situation. It may not be true however, and biden did win fairly.

Two politicians doing wrong, but only one gets called out for it, is even worse for a democracy and voters.

 

[sufferinsilence]

Biden's EO were just reversing Trump's EO's.

 

[Kroffe]

I was just about to log out but if we're talking about trump lying in bringing his election fraud cases, in every civil case a judge has to decide who is telling the truth out of the parties, and also where the truth lays; I think trump truly believes biden's win was fraud assisted or unfair in some way, so I don't think he has been wilfully and knowingly lying about the election situation. It may not be true however, and biden did win fairly.

Two politicians doing wrong, but only one gets called out for it, is even worse for a democracy and voters.

Agree to disagree i guess.
I dont think Trump is the sharpest tool in the shed, but i dont think hes dumb enough to not understand that he had lost.
He probably already knew when he went out and declared victory before the count was done (which was stupid in all sorts of ways)
If he didnt figure it out himself, surely someone among his staff must have told him that it wasnt looking very good, and that he was likely to lose.
But then again, maybe nobody did, people that didnt suck up to him were regularly fired from his administration, so maybe nobody dared tell him.

 

[slotplayer]

Is that why you think its ok for Trump?
I never got that way of thinking.
Two people doing wrong is worse than one person doing wrong, not better.

No offense, but you tend to play the morality card but its always in one direction. You don't see that about yourself.

 

[slotplayer]

I was just about to log out but if we're talking about trump lying in bringing his election fraud cases, in every civil case a judge has to decide who is telling the truth out of the parties, and also where the truth lays; I think trump truly believes biden's win was fraud assisted or unfair in some way, so I don't think he has been wilfully and knowingly lying about the election situation. It may not be true however, and biden did win fairly.

Two politicians doing wrong, but only one gets called out for it, is even worse for a democracy and voters.

My friend brought up the point that maybe Trump was privy to election shananigans we were not. Its possible I suppose.
Hillary Clinton and Stacy Abrams both continue to claim their elections were fraudulent as well.

The difference is Trump became obsessed with the loss when all options in his right where exhausted. Its actually too bad because he could have went out on a high note as he finally did get some respect for his operation warp speed program from the left media he desperately longed for, even CNN called him "the president" for a while.

But I would not get back in to debating the election if I were you, the mail-in ballots are blank when the voters receive them and its up to each candidate to convince the voters they're the better choice. Ultimately, Trump did it to himself.

 

[Kroffe]

No offense, but you tend to play the morality card but its always in one direction. You don't see that about yourself.

Could you give me an example?

 

[pinnit2014]

Could you give me an example?

Close enough - Sounds like the most boring game ever.

Not a patch on Hungry Hippos

 

[slotplayer]

Could you give me an example?

I had list of three a couple of weeks ago fresh in my mind, but can't remember 2 of them right now as I just woke up but I remember the Trump election email one. If I remember the other two I'll let you know.

 

[Kroffe]

I had list of three a couple of weeks ago fresh in my mind, but can't remember 2 of them right now as I just woke up but I remember the Trump election email one. If I remember the other two I'll let you know.

Trump election email?
Im not sure i know what you are referring to.

 

[Kroffe]

Close enough - Sounds like the most boring game ever.

Not a patch on Hungry Hippos

View attachment 150480

Great game, but not everyone plays fair.

 

[slotplayer]

Trump election email?
Im not sure i know what you are referring to.

I can't remember what thread it was but it had something to do with the first $8k going to the Trump super pac.

 

[Kroffe]

I can't remember what thread it was but it had something to do with the first $8k going to the Trump super pac.

I still feel the same about that
Dick move to collect money to "stop the steal" when almost none of the donations actually went to that.
And the agressive emails that were sent out begging for those donations (without mentioning where the money actually went) were no better.

Not sure how thinking that was a crap thing to do was playing the morality card only one way tho.
Its not like i praised anyone else for doing the same, right?

 

[mack341]

My friend brought up the point that maybe Trump was privy to election shananigans we were not. Its possible I suppose.
Hillary Clinton and Stacy Abrams both continue to claim their elections were fraudulent as well.

The difference is Trump became obsessed with the loss when all options in his right where exhausted. Its actually too bad because he could have went out on a high note as he finally did get some respect for his operation warp speed program from the left media he desperately longed for, even CNN called him "the president" for a while.

But I would not get back in to debating the election if I were you, the mail-in ballots are blank when the voters receive them and its up to each candidate to convince the voters they're the better choice. Ultimately, Trump did it to himself.

No I won't get back into it in a big way, I was just starting to accept the biden/kamala reality and then this impeachment stuff and brouhaha over the capitol hill protest received saturation coverage, the dems and media are so smug it's unbelievable...and if some shenanigans did happen in that election, it makes it even worse as then the capitol protest and impeachment would never have occurred.

After what happened in 2016, the authorities bugging and spying on his campaign, I'm not convinced anything was off the table to prevent him securing a 2nd term, it must be highly unusual for a president to win millions more votes than last time and still lose, but just goes to show how divided people were I guess, polarised.

 

[vorcirion]

No I won't get back into it in a big way, I was just starting to accept the biden/kamala reality and then this impeachment stuff and brouhaha over the capitol hill protest received saturation coverage, the dems and media are so smug it's unbelievable...and if some shenanigans did happen in that election, it makes it even worse as then the capitol protest and impeachment would never have occurred.

After what happened in 2016, the authorities bugging and spying on his campaign, I'm not convinced anything was off the table to prevent him securing a 2nd term, it must be highly unusual for a president to win millions more votes than last time and still lose, but just goes to show how divided people were I guess, polarised.

Yeah it's not really fun when someone tries to murder you. Might make people cranky a bit. But sure you can call that as "a protest".
Law and order-president huh? Killing some cops and then saying to these cop killers: "we love you".
Trump had the power to stop this murderous mob but he never tried. He actually liked the scene and you still keep defending him.

 

[slotplayer]

I still feel the same about that
Dick move to collect money to "stop the steal" when almost none of the donations actually went to that.
And the agressive emails that were sent out begging for those donations (without mentioning where the money actually went) were no better.

Not sure how thinking that was a crap thing to do was playing the morality card tho.
It would be hard to argue it was a nice thing to do.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[slotplayer]

No I won't get back into it in a big way, I was just starting to accept the biden/kamala reality and then this impeachment stuff and brouhaha over the capitol hill protest received saturation coverage, the dems and media are so smug it's unbelievable...and if some shenanigans did happen in that election, it makes it even worse as then the capitol protest and impeachment would never have occurred.

After what happened in 2016, the authorities bugging and spying on his campaign, I'm not convinced anything was off the table to prevent him securing a 2nd term, it must be highly unusual for a president to win millions more votes than last time and still lose, but just goes to show how divided people were I guess, polarised.

Right after I posted not to rehash the election I saw this video on U Tube.

 

[mack341]

Yeah it's not really fun when someone tries to murder you. Might make people cranky a bit. But sure you can call that as "a protest".
Law and order-president huh? Killing some cops and then saying to these cop killers: "we love you".
Trump had the power to stop this murderous mob but he never tried. He actually liked the scene and you still keep defending him.

I'll file this in the 'not worth replying to' pile, along with your other gaslighting/ strawman/ ad hominem replies to me.

 

[sufferinsilence]

I'll file this in the 'not worth replying to' pile, along with your other gaslighting/ strawman/ ad hominem replies to me.

I almost forgot about ad eminem

 

[Steviedoo]

This is similar/same video the media has been showing, but the one O'Reilly showed was the one the impeachment managers played in Congress. I watched it live and noticed the little hiccup, over the word peaceful right off.

there is no hiccup.
the word peaceful was not deleted or cut out.
he did not say it in that clip they chose to show.
there was no edit purposely leaving out the word peaceful.
go review the tape last minute of the his speech and you will see he did not say the word peaceful for the clip they chose.

 

[slotplayer]

there is no hiccup.
the word peaceful was not deleted or cut out.
he did not say it in that clip they chose to show.
there was no edit purposely leaving out the word peaceful.
go review the tape last minute of the his speech and you will see he did not say the word peaceful for the clip they chose.

I saw it live when the House Dems ran it. It was the same as what O'Reilly showed. However, I did not see or watch the speech so maybe the excerpt occurred from earlier in the speech? In either case I don't really care.

 

[mack341]

Trump's acquitted as expected:

"with seven Republicans (Senators Sasse, Romney, Burr, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey and Cassidy) joining Democrats on the charge of incitement."

Of course, Trump is no longer in office. But if Trump had been convicted, the Senate could also have voted to prevent the former president from ever holding office again."

[bbc]

 

[Kroffe]

Bit of a joke from GOP side of things.
I mean, republican jurors on the case who are supposed to be impartial holding defense strategy meetings with trumps lawyers, what even is that?

Or Mitch
"
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Trump is directly responsible for the events of the day. He summoned the mob and provoked them to violence."

MITCH MCCONNELL: "Not guilty."

Oh, i see, that makes sense Mitch.


Atleast a couple of them showed some spine and tried to do the right thing.

 

[cncas2123]

Bit of a joke from GOP side of things.
I mean, republican jurors on the case who are supposed to be impartial holding defense strategy meetings with trumps lawyers, what even is that?

Or Mitch
"
MITCH MCCONNELL: "Trump is directly responsible for the events of the day. He summoned the mob and provoked them to violence."

MITCH MCCONNELL: "Not guilty."

Oh, i see, that makes sense Mitch.


Atleast a couple of them showed some spine and tried to do the right thing.

He was never going to be convicted by 17 Republicans, they have no backbone.
IMHO the Impeachment was a mistake, it would have been much better to have gone through the court system and held proper investigations into his conduct and actions from the date of the election onwards, and hopefully he will face charges for trying to cheat the voters of Georgia.

 

[Kroffe]

He was never going to be convicted by 17 Republicans, they have no backbone.
IMHO the Impeachment was a mistake, it would have been much better to have gone through the court system and held proper investigations into his conduct and actions from the date of the election onwards, and hopefully he will face charges for trying to cheat the voters of Georgia.

Still bizarre to listen to Mitch.
You wouldnt guess this is coming from a man who voted not guilty.

 

[mack341]

They were never going to turn against the man that won the most ever votes for their party, they'd all have to face determined challenges for their seats next time they came up, plus it was a misuse of impeachment proceedings when he'd lost the election and was no longer president.

It's hypocritical bedwetters united [dems and rinos] vs the real world of people being pissed off with the Govt and politicians who are so distant and pampered/insulated.

Anyway that's the way I see it.

 

[Kroffe]

They were never going to turn against the man that won the most ever votes for their party, they'd all have to face determined challenges for their seats next time they came up, plus it was a misuse of impeachment proceedings when he'd lost the election and was no longer president.

It's hypocritical bedwetters united [dems and rinos] vs the real world of people being pissed off with the Govt and politicians who are so distant and pampered/insulated.

Anyway that's the way I see it.

And in this way that you see it, Mitch is not on the hypocritical side of things.
We see things very differently i guess.
I dont understand how anyone can listen to the speech Mitch gave and claim that him voting not guilty is not hypocritical.

 

[mack341]

And in this way that you see it, Mitch is not on the hypocritical side of things.
We see things very differently i guess.
I dont understand how anyone can listen to the speech Mitch gave and claim that him voting not guilty is not hypocritical.

Mitch is probably in the hypocritical side, he wants his cake and to eat it, his reasoning though [via the bbc report]:

"impeachment is a "narrow tool for a narrow purpose"

McConnell says his understanding of the Constitution finds that only the president, vice-president and civil officers can be convicted: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen".

"If removal [from current office] becomes impossible," he continues, "conviction becomes insensible."

edit: I see the wtg troll is following the debate, you're giving me a headshake and chuckle mate so keep it up

 

[Kroffe]

Mitch is probably in the hypocritical side, he wants his cake and to eat it, his reasoning though [via the bbc report]:

"impeachment is a "narrow tool for a narrow purpose"

McConnell says his understanding of the Constitution finds that only the president, vice-president and civil officers can be convicted: "We have no power to convict and disqualify a former officeholder who is now a private citizen".

"If removal [from current office] becomes impossible," he continues, "conviction becomes insensible."

He says that, but it was he that delayed the impeachment was it not?
I mean, he straight up says Trump is guilty, but still voted not guilty because the trial took place after he left the WH, and the reason it did that was because of him.
But its the other side thats hypocritical?

Imo they were only scared to lose votes, and that is the only reason they did not vote to impeach, not because they think hes not guilty.
Some showed backbone and cast their vote based on facts instead of just trying to protect the party, but most, just like Mitch, voted not guilty despite thinking/knowing he was guilty.


Edit: Bill Cassidy said it better.

“Our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person. I voted to convict President Trump because he is guilty.”

 

[mack341]

He says that, but it was he that delayed the impeachment was it not?

Imo they were only scared to lose votes, and that is the only reason they did not vote to impeach, not because they think hes not guilty.
Some showed backbone and cast their vote based on facts instead of just trying to protect the party, but most, just like Mitch, voted not guilty despite thinking/knowing he was guilty.

I could look at the rep ones that voted, how they voted on other issues, but I'm pretty sure they'd be never-trumpers and more liberal minded than simply men of high principle, they want the republican party to adopt their viewpoint not that of trump's base.

These 'republican' senators will lap up the applauding media coverage too no doubt, and they probably never even looked into the election fraud claims. I know I'm biased but they make me heave like newsom with his joker smile.

 

[Kroffe]

I could look at the rep ones that voted, how they voted on other issues, but I'm pretty sure they'd be never-trumpers and more liberal minded than simply men of high principle, they want the republican party to adopt their viewpoint not that of trump's base.

These 'republican' senators will lap up the applauding media coverage too no doubt, and they probably never even looked into the election fraud claims. I know I'm biased but they make me heave like newsom with his joker smile.

So basically "every republican that does not agree with my views is just a pretend republican"
Like its inconceivable that a person can be a republican and at the same time not have their nose up Trumps butt.

I think they just shot themselves in the foot tho by voting not to impeach.
They have given Trump way too much power over the republican party, and if he decides to run solo, or endorse someone running as a third party, the next election will be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

 

[mack341]

So basically "every republican that does not agree with my views is just a pretend republican"
Like its inconceivable that a person can be a republican and at the same time not have their nose up Trumps butt.

I think they just shot themselves in the foot tho by voting not to impeach.
They have given Trump way too much power over the republican party, and if he decides to run solo, or endorse someone running as a third party, the next election will be a cakewalk for the Democrats.

The failings of establishment politicians for years led to trump being able to run, it's not about sucking up to his butt [probably quite big though it is], by your reasoning why they made a mistake voting no, if they'd gone ahead they would be impeaching him for the wrong reasons, that he's a 3rd party or kingmaker threat in 2024 etc...

The whole thing was badly thought out, but appealed to the dems and the media who constantly want to 'signal' disapproval about this or that, intead of getting on and improving the lives of their voters [changing education, health, training, job availability etc] look at the high crime areas under democratic control for decades, talk about failed states.

But those things are hard to fix, so better/easier to bellyache on about Trump and do loads of PC preaching and telling people what they can and can't say.

 

[Kroffe]

The failings of establishment politicians for years led to trump being able to run, it's not about sucking up to his butt [probably quite big though it is], by your reasoning why they made a mistake voting no, if they'd gone ahead they would be impeaching him for the wrong reasons, that he's a 3rd party or kingmaker threat in 2024 etc...

The whole thing was badly thought out, but appealed to the dems and the media who constantly want to 'signal' disapproval about this or that, intead of getting on and improving the lives of their voters, look at the high crime areas under democratic control for decades, talk about failed states. But those things are hard to fix, so better/easier to bellyache on about Trump and do loads of PC preaching and telling people what they can and can't say.

Agree to disagree.

If they didnt have such a backwards system in place, where the majority of people keep getting screwed over by the minority he would have been found guilty.
57 voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty should not mean the final verdict is not guilty, but yet it does.
The majority obviously think hes guilty, but thats not enough.
Hell, if the majority actually meant something in their political system, he wouldnt have been President in the first place.

And if he endorses someone to run as a 3rd party he wont be a kingmaker, more a gop-destroyer.
They had their chance to do the right thing, and at the same time distance themselves from him, but didnt take it, and i think they will suffer for it.

 

[mack341]

Agree to disagree.

If they didnt have such a backwards system in place, where the majority of people keep getting screwed over by the minority he would have been found guilty.
57 voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty should not mean the final verdict is not guilty, but yet it does.
The majority obviously think hes guilty, but thats not enough.
Hell, if the majority actually meant something in their political system, he wouldnt have been President in the first place.

And if he endorses someone to run as a 3rd party he wont be a kingmaker, more a gop-destroyer.
They had their chance to do the right thing, and at the same time distance themselves from him, but didnt take it, and i think they will suffer for it.

They can embrace him as kingmaker, maga 2024, what else can they offer the voters, the mormon bloke or another bush?

The system of 2/3s majority is what it is, I don't think it's a bad thing entirely for these types of trials, a jury trial often has to be minimum 11 out of 12 majority, would you be happy to hang someone if 7 out of twelve said guilty and the other 5 said not guilty?

edit putting aside you probably don't agree with capital punishment full stop, but a serious case perhaps with consequences.

 

[Kroffe]

They can embrace him as kingmaker, maga 2024, what else can they offer the voters, the mormon bloke or another bush?

The system of 2/3s majority is what it is, I don't think it's a bad thing entirely for these types of trials, a jury trial often has to be 10/11 out of 12 majority, would you be happy to hang someone if 7 out of twelve said guilty and the other 5 said not guilty?

You can flip that around.
Would you let a murderer go free because 5 out of 12 voted not guilty.
Going with the majority seems like the sensible thing, no?

 

[mack341]

You can flip that around.
Would you let a murderer go free because 5 out of 12 voted not guilty.
Going with the majority seems like the sensible thing, no?

They're not a murderer in the english system until proven guilty, I think there is some saying about 'better a guilty man go free than an innocent hanged', but I know what you mean, however it's the principle of having a safe conviction, 57/43 isn't really is it?

Also different to an election first past the post scenario, this is a serious crime being charged. Some of the protesters may get 20 years, so the person who the senate believes incited it would probably also face 20 years?

 

[sufferinsilence]

This 2nd impeachment was mostly symbolic, everyone knew they were never going to find 17 R's to vote guilty and in the end it wouldn't have much of an impact either way because he's already voted out.

Never say never but I don't think he'll run again in 2024. Ivanka seems to be gunning for governor of Florida so that could be the start of some sort of political career. I can't see Jr, Eric or Tiffany pursuing a career in politics tbh. Someone like Ted Cruz will never leave the republican party if Trump was to back a 3rd party. I'm not sure who they could push that has an actual chance and wants to put their political life on the line for a pensioner.

 

[mack341]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

 

[Kroffe]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

It was a 70min long speech, maybe the "peacefully" got drowned out by the 69m55seconds he spent spewing conspiracies & lies while telling the crowd to fight like hell, save our democracy etc.

 

[vorcirion]

Just thinking about that word 'peacefully' trump said, now if he'd said 'protest violently' it would surely be an open and shut case.

Some of the protesters got so worked up they forgot about peacefully, others didn't they stayed outside, so the ones who did the storming imo had that in their mind before that day, leading up to it, then you get the crowd psychology adding to that, and people get swept up into actions, following others.

Do you agree that Trump had the power to stop the mob? And do you agree that he didn't use that power to stop them?

 

[mack341]

Do you agree that Trump had the power to stop the mob? And do you agree that he didn't use that power to stop them?

Do you mean influence/persuade them with a speech?

I think trump may have thought mike pence could reject the votes, if enough public citizen pressure was brought to bear and was thinking mainly of that, I don't believe he was thinking 'it'll be a good idea if I rouse up my voters so they storm illegally into the congress building'

He does like to push things to the limit in his speeches and fire people up, ditto bernie sanders on the other wing of politics, he wants to fire people up about wealth distribution and the rich etc..that's what makes an effective politician/speaker, obviously there can be unseen consequences and risks. I cannot, for example, believe the rioters, arsonists and looters haven't been influenced by political rhetoric somewhere down the line.

If we're talking about direct power, the DC authorities could have deployed more police and then none of this gets out of hand.

But we are where we are, the trump voters felt they had a genuine grievance of the most serious type for a democracy, a corrupt election, so things were going to get heated.

The country was formed on the back of a revolutionary war remember, things like that resonate in some viewpoints, and if the majority of the population are happy and contented it would never happen, so it's a chicken and egg situation.

 

[vorcirion]

Do you mean influence/persuade them with a speech?

I think trump may have thought mike pence could reject the votes, if enough public citizen pressure was brought to bear and was thinking mainly of that, I don't believe he was thinking 'it'll be a good idea if I rouse up my voters so they storm illegally into the congress building'

He does like to push things to the limit in his speeches and fire people up, ditto bernie sanders on the other wing of politics, he wants to fire people up about wealth distribution and the rich etc..that's what makes an effective politician/speaker, obviously there can be unseen consequences and risks. I cannot, for example, believe the rioters, arsonists and looters haven't been influenced by political rhetoric somewhere down the line.

If we're talking about direct power, the DC authorities could have deployed more police and then none of this gets out of hand.

But we are where we are, the trump voters felt they had a genuine grievance of the most serious type for a democracy, a corrupt election, so things were going to get heated.

The country was formed on the back of a revolutionary war remember, things like that resonate in some viewpoints, and if the majority of the population are happy and contented it would never happen, so it's a chicken and egg situation.

I'm talking about sending a tweet or coming to tv-cameras right away and telling them to stop when he saw the mob attacking Capitol Hill.

 

[sapit222]

Chicken s**t republicans!

Trump have too much dirt on them all, so they dont dare vote guilty. :axeman2: