Can you point out to me any speech made by a Democrat where a member of the crowd openly asked "when do we get to use the guns"?
A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
" In an interview with The Washington Post, Francisco J. Diaz, the medical examiner, said the autopsy found no evidence the 42-year-old officer suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants, which Diaz said would have caused Sicknick’s throat to quickly seize. Diaz also said there was no evidence of internal or external injuries. "
So the medical examiner found no evidence of external injury, and you call that "beaten within an inch of his life". Good job.
The concession has no power. It doesn't matter whether the loser concedes, they still lose. Clinton conceding and then continuing to speculate on how she could still be president if Trump goes to jail is not the olive branch you think it is. Democratic politicians have been encouraging supporters to do things like demonstrate at judges houses or approach Republicans out at restaurants... a guy just tried to assassinate Kavanaugh at his home. Joe Biden just said on Jimmy Kimmel a few hours after a man tried to kill a Supreme Court Justice that if they overturn Roe it will cause "a mini revolution". And if you say "he specified by voting" I point you to every time Trump said "peaceful", you count both or you count neither.
And like, come on. Bloody insurrection that killed 7 people? The only person who died of external causes at the capital that day was shot by police.
I think about this more than I should, but are you aware they kicked the Green Party off the Pennsylvania ticket? Democrats booted the Green Party's candidate, to avoid losing votes to the left. They sued on a minor clerical error and had them removed from the ballot, a judge let them back on, and the Democratic majority on the state Supreme Court kicked them back off the ticket again. That's such foul play. That's unbelievably self-serving. And the part that upsets me the most is that the Green Party wasn't told about their minor clerical error. Imagine filling out a form, submitting it to the government, having it accepted, getting on the ballot, and then getting sued off the ballot for an error you weren't informed about. How in the world would the Democrats know another party faxed a document that needed to be hand delivered, while said party had no idea there was an issue? There's some truly underhanded BS going on there.
Not that specific sentence, no. If you want to see lots of Democrats talking expressly about violence, see the post above.
No. That whole Sussman thing you're talking about is a different Trump-Russia issue, and essentially a red herring.
The FBI took an interest in Trump and Russia through a different route, the "Steele Dossier". The Clinton campaign paid a company to investigate Trump. That company paid an investigator called Steele who used to be an intelligence agent who dealt with Russia. However, the middleman company firewalled the operation, so the Clinton campaign was unaware of the intelligence agent and the intelligence agent was unaware his work was ultimately funded by the Clinton campaign. Steele then found a load of stuff, some of which he was sufficiently worried about that he sent it directly to the FBI himself.
I think you're forgetting that there was that small matter of a major, global pandemic. And despite what you melodramatically describe as "haphazardly upending", there was still virtually no fraud... like almost every US election.
The "real crazies" on the right were going well before Trump got elected. He gave them plenty more oxygen.
That's an interesting argument, given that I didn't recall you complaining much about those "Lock her up" chants Trump get inciting. I mean, Trump is effectively the living embodiment of what you're complaining about here, endless recycling raging, bitter grudges and non-stop, inflammatory rhetoric.
You've also got a kind of problem here that Trump is not yet a failure. He's still the single most important figure in the Republican Party, and still the leading candidate to win their nomination in 2024.
And finally, you really need to learn that sometimes you have to stop people, not just hope they fade away. Trump is a narcissist. He doesn't have morals and shame in the way you think. All he learns from be allowed to get away with something is that he can do what he wants without consequence: so he'll come back and do the same shit all over again, twice as hard. And thrice as nasty, because he'll be seeking vengeance, too.
I'll have to remember this trick next time someone claims there's voter suppression. As long as there isn't fraud, anything goes!
Well, you see, my complaints are less about the rhetoric than they are about all of you lying about it. If any of you were like "lock her up is a totally justified thing to chant", I might disagree. If someone here were to suggest that in the summer of 2020, the protestors setting buildings on fire outside the White House were directly ordered by Democrats to overthrow democracy, I would suggest that person has gone off the deep end. Ya'll condemn one side's crazy and justify the other, you're gonna get asymmetrical responses.
And who is holding him in the spotlight? The struggle session they are doing right now makes Trump more prominent and increases support for him. Why did Trump get nonstop CNN coverage in 2016? Because that's who Democrats want Republicans to be. They have taken Voltaire's prayer and enacted it. The singular purpose of the January 6th commission is to try and make Trump the Republican Party to try to win elections for Democrats. They don't want Trump to disappear, they see him as an easier opponent to beat, and are deliberately keeping him relevant. The left wing news is constantly beating the drum that all Trump's endorsed candidates are winning primaries, but he's just picking whoever is in the lead in the polls to slap his name on, and a lot of these candidates are ignoring or disavowing the endorsements. Trump tried to hold a rally for Glen Youngkin, and Youngkin told him to back off, and wouldn't even entertain a virtual rally. That is a now prominent name in Republican politics that won in a highly contested race while pushing Trump away. I know you can't see this, I know none of the media getting to you is going to show it that way.
I don't care what Trump would do. There are many worse narcissists in the world, just most of them have no power. You are making Trump into a god and then wondering why people follow him. He's not a god. If people ignored him, he'd have no political power at all. I don't care what lessons he learns or doesn't learn, his power comes entirely from other people who can just ignore him and the problem is solved.
I suppose if you wanted to come across as a raving conspiracy theorist you could.
What was the result of the Democrats "upending" election rules aside from more people getting to safely vote during a pandemic?
You absolute fucking qunt. Fuck you.
"Denunciation rallies,[1] also called struggle sessions, were violent public spectacles in Maoist China, where people accused of being "class enemies" of the Maoists were publicly humiliated, accused, beaten and tortured by people they were close to."
Elections need to make voting as fair and accessible as possible without compromising critical security. If there has not been significant fraud, this strongly suggests there is not a security problem. What you and other Republicans are mostly complaining about are means that facilitated voting but didn't meet certain technical features, but without any clear evidence they are a security problem. Essentially, rules for rules' sake, rather than rules for optimal function.
Republicans are then supporting their own electoral system changes to combat fraud that effectively doesn't exist. If those changes have no useful security function but do in practice restrict some people's ability to vote, those changes may as well be called voter suppression.
You're making the critical error of assuming it's only other people who do that, not you.
Here's the thing with representative democracy: a democratic representative is necessarily representative of their voters to a significant degree. It is completely within the power of Republicans to show they are not like Trump: kick him out of the party. So what does it tell us that they won't?
Secondly, you misunderstand media. Media is a business, and their job and profits are based on covering points of public interest. Media that ignores public interest is going to lose money and die. The media aren't covering Trump to defame the Republican Party, they're covering him because he generates attention. He is abnormal and outrageous, and these are key factors that drive public interest, and have done so for long before the Trump presidency. Trump aggressively seeks to generate attention, because he's a narcissist; and it's one thing he is good at. Trump feeds on outrage: stoking the outrage of Republicans, inciting outrage in Democrats. Asking media to ignore him is asking media to not do its job, and you may as well ask a sheep in a field not to eat the grass. You might ask the public to ignore him... but you can also ask the public to not eat hamburgers, and let's see how far you get.
There's an element that the Democrats are happy to keep people's minds fresh on that atrocity. But then, the Republicans know all about that tactic: what else were they doing with the seemingly neverending Clinton email server and Benghazi sagas, or the Ken Starr investigation back in the 90s? I don't mind if Republicans want a ceasefire on overblown spectacles, but they can't demand them only when it's them and theirs up for punishment.
The other element is that there is, genuinely, a massive fucking problem when a President attempts to derail democratic process for their own benefit. The best I can give you is that Capitol riot, whilst superficially grabbing, is arguably less concerning than the less visible concerted efforts the Trump team were making to undermine the election. In a way, I feel genuinely sorry for you that through partisanship you have blinded yourself to this threat.
As above, re. representative democracy. The moment Republicans ignore Trump, he does indeed go away. You made him into a god in 2016, and you keep him as one to this day. Take some fucking responsibility, instead of fobbing it off on everyone else.
Ah yes, but don't you know that democrats do the same?
It's only the republicans now that have been caught red-handed, but democrats have been doing it also! Look into them!
I think this sentence illustrates more than anything else the fundamental misunderstanding you've made about the situation.
The concession has no legal power. That's what you mean, and it seems you're treating that as the end of it. Trump choosing not to concede, and insisting to his followers that the win was not legitimate, is what directly led to the political violence at the capitol. Its what prompted dozens of officials and lawyers to attempt to legally disenfranchise millions of voters.
Oh no, approaching a politician outside a restaurant! Protesting at a house! Because that's the same fucking thing as endorsing a literal death threat, right?
The issue is, Trump says "peaceful" when it's helpful, and then it turns out he explicitly endorsed non-peaceful methods when that was helpful, too. He directly contradicts himself depending on context. Saying "peaceful!" at one moment doesn't wipe clean the fact he called for a politician to die, or that he described non-peaceful protesters beating someone into a coma as "doing the right thing". Whereas Biden... uhrm, used the word "revolution", which doesn't even really carry violent connotations (any major overhaul is described as a 'revolution'. TV shows and music are described as 'revolutionary').
Yep, thats underhanded shite all right.
But you're not actually concerned about efforts to subvert democracy when it's convenient; you continue to equivocate about the Republican effort to disenfranchise entire States' worth of legitimate voters. You don't actually give a toss about the principle; this is convenience.
No, you?
To be fair, I don't want to accuse you of ignoring the things that are inconvenient, as I don't think that's the truth. I think your ignorance is largely innocent ignorance. You're on a different continent, and the news you get of America is almost entirely filtered through Democrats, I can hardly fault you for having so lopsided a perception of things. Do you think disenfranchisement is a uniquely Republican problem? Do you think gerrymandering is a uniquely Republican problem? Have you seen Maryland? Here's an article about the old map:
Hogan, Other Redistricting Reformers Give it the Old College Try - Maryland Matters
The congressional map Maryland has used since 2012 is so wildly contorted and misshapen, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear lawsuits against it...
www.marylandmatters.org
Governor Hogan signs into law a new map of Maryland’s congressional districts
Governor Hogan has signed into law a new map of Maryland’s congressional districts, settling the issue after a judge rejected Democrats’ first draft as too partisan. Maryland Matters editor Josh Kurtz fills us in. Plus, a week away from sine die, a legislative update from WYPR’s Joel McCord.
www.wypr.org
The majority of people in both major parties are trying to do their best for people. The Democrats have a tumor of heinous people doing heinous things that they get away with by owning the media, and the Republican Party only recently started to mimic that by owning their own media. Just understand that you're being influenced by the Democrats propaganda efforts and you can start seeing the reality of things.
"There's no such thing as propaganda, since that wouldn't make money." - Agema
Oh, so they're holding a show trial that has no power to actually legally prosecute where they publicly display Trump's daughter disagreeing with him, and people on this forum demand a full public denunciation and banishment of Trump by the Republican Party, and you're mad at me for noticing the parallels?
Well, no. In my state, elderly people (Republicans) were given guidance, for their safety, to stay inside and avoid voting in person, and they could navigate the mail ballots if they still want to vote. Meanwhile, people in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh were given advanced in person voting options, which were legally treated as mail-in ballots except you can still spread covid while doing it! And they kicked the Green Party off the ballot... you know... for covid safety reasons.
During the last two national elections, they've let people vote in person at least a week beforehand. There was only about 5 people in a community hall voting with about as many staff.
So there was enough room to not get worried about Covid. But then, Im not talking about American
Oh, it would have been safer if it was actual polling places. They opened up some small offices in Philadelphia. And had people sealing their votes in envelopes, since they were "mail-in ballots". I don't know if people were licking envelopes, and then handing them over immediately, but probably.
Edit: slight edit, I initially implied they were all small spaces. Some were, some weren't, some took advantage of the schools being closed.
Last edited:
This is pretty lazy. None of the events I've brought up are in dispute. And if the rest of the world is pretty uniformly of the opinion that the Republicans are whack-jobs, that's not the fault of "the media", because we're still receiving accurate information about what's actually going on. It's the result of the Republicans verging ever further into political extremes.
No, I obviously don't think disenfranchisement or gerrymandering are "uniquely Republican", which is why literally nothing I said indicated that.Do you think disenfranchisement is a uniquely Republican problem? Do you think gerrymandering is a uniquely Republican problem? Have you seen Maryland? Here's an article about the old map:
Here's the new map, led by the Republican Governor:Hogan, Other Redistricting Reformers Give it the Old College Try - Maryland Matters
The congressional map Maryland has used since 2012 is so wildly contorted and misshapen, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear lawsuits against it...
Governor Hogan signs into law a new map of Maryland’s congressional districts
Governor Hogan has signed into law a new map of Maryland’s congressional districts, settling the issue after a judge rejected Democrats’ first draft as too partisan. Maryland Matters editor Josh Kurtz fills us in. Plus, a week away from sine die, a legislative update from WYPR’s Joel McCord.
You've discovered some gerrymandering. Congratulations; nobody disputed it existed, and I've explicitly acknowledged the Democrats' involvement in it numerous times before.
If you think rewriting these districts is even one iota as much of an anti-democratic outrage as the Republican effort to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of legitimate voters, then your head is not where it should be.
Buddy, you're getting into some truly pathetic "wake up, sheeple!" territory-- made all the more risible by the fact it comes hot on the heels of hyper-partisan "Democrats always bad, Republicans fine until they act like Democrats" shite.
They've acted like this for decades. Often worse than anything the other parties have stooped to. And you're receiving your news and analysis through a prism that automatically excuses whatever they do.
"There's no such thing as journalistic integrity, only propaganda" - Tstorm
See, we can all play that stupid game. It's about as constructive as bashing rocks together.
This follows a longstanding trend of yours, again, about attempting to shift blame. In this case, shifting the responsibility of a politician (Trump) to look and act the part of a serious, sober and responsible public servant onto some magicked-up responsibility of the media to not report where he was erratic, inflammatory, irascible, ignorant and incompetent. There's a whole industry called "public relations" devoted to assisting entities manage the media. It is not the job of the press to smooth over politicians' inadequacies - quite the opposite, in fact: they should be exposing them.
A "struggle session" was not even a show trial. It was a ritual public humiliation (often involving physical torture) which did not need to be based on any crime at all.
And like I said, I'd be very interested to see if you described them as such when Republicans have conducted them, because I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no.
a) No, I'm not. I know exactly how biased NPR is in favor of Democrats because I listen to NPR. I have literally never used Fox News to get my news.
b) Prior to 2020, every single January 6th challenge to the vote counting came from Democrats. And the constant demands for recounts? You don't think at any point they were hoping to "find" some votes flip the elections in 2016, 2004, 2000...
Is it accurate that there were legal challenges to the election? Sure. Is that unusual? Hell no. Why is Trump's team trying to challenge the election different than Clinton's team? Why is it different than the gubernatorial race in Georgia? Legal challenges to elections are completely mundane and happen all the time and need to be an option in case there is actual malfeasance. That being reported as some unprecedented attack on democracy itself is not accurate. The facts of the events might be correct, the context and the significance of it are complete bullcrap.
I don't point to all the times Democrats did exactly the same things just to whatabout them. I'm trying to tell you that these things happen all the time, and nobody was having elaborate stage productions of a trial to hash out all the evils of one of the two parties (and yelling at any news network that didn't air the coverage live). There's nothing unprecedented about Trump saying "fight", hell, even attacking the Capital isn't unprecedented. In the 80s, leftist extremists actually bombed the Senate.
Your argument against propaganda (it's not profitable) is even more applicable to journalistic integrity. You can't assume people prioritize only journalist ethics or money, and never anything else.
Check this out:
A Democratic finance group is buying up Spanish-language talk radio across the country because they think those stations are too conservative. Are you gonna pretend that's journalistic ethics, or are you going to pretend Spanish language talk radio is a profitable investment for them? It's neither, they're losing the Hispanic vote and panicking.
You do ask me this every time, and every time I say yes. The half dozen Benghazi hearings (we might forgive the first one, but any after that certainly) were never intended to find any deeper truth to the situation, they existed to cause the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton specifically as much trouble as possible.