A few thoughts about January 6, 2021
- Thread starter ObsidianJones
- Start date
This is not in any way exclusive to the Republican Party. Do you not recognize how many things Democrats do just to piss off Republicans?
We didn't elect a presidential candidate specifically to piss people off. By your own admission, you did.
A b**** in a box stand betraying a bigger b**** in a box stand because the second b**** was more than a happy to abandon the first b****.
www.newsweek.com
You're also guilty of being a traitor of your country and allow jackass. You want to add that as well. What a waste of good stimulus money too. You could have literally save that money you dumbass.
Good to know. Start squealing like the little piggies you are.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/BHLHH6OBBJNWZHC2PXUNCA5BOU.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Cowboys for Trump Founder Turns on Trump Over Capitol Riot Charges
"The only ones locked up were men like me, and others like me, that have stood by the president the strongest," said Couy Griffin.
www.newsweek.com
You're also guilty of being a traitor of your country and allow jackass. You want to add that as well. What a waste of good stimulus money too. You could have literally save that money you dumbass.
'I am guilty of being an idiot…': U.S. Capitol riot defendant apologizes
Glenn Wes Lee Croy of Colorado Springs will soon be sentenced for his behavior inside the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection. Prosecutors seek jail time.
www.9news.com
Good to know. Start squealing like the little piggies you are.
Jan. 6 protest organizers said they met with 'a dozen' GOP reps ahead of Capitol riots: Rolling Stone
Two organizers who say they planned Jan. 6 protests across the US told Rolling Stone they met with GOP representatives or their teams "back to back to back to back."
www.businessinsider.com
Thousands of hours of U.S. Capitol riot videos swamp attorneys
The thousands of hours of video of the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol by Donald Trump supporters have overwhelmed the prosecutors and defense lawyers handling the hundreds of criminal cases and are delaying trials for some defendants.
www.reuters.com
Justices overseeing Capitol riot defendants receive 'threats:' judge
DC District Judge Reggie Walton made the comments during a Friday sentencing hearing where he handed down the largest fine for a Capitol rioter yet.
www.google.com
She didn't run on a platform of "look at how mad the republicans are, lol".
Already addressed, but we didn't vote for her because it made conservatives angry. We voted for her because our bullshit primary system saddled us with her and the alternative was worse, as he handily proved once he got into office. Really dude, just stop talking.
And why did she win the primary? Why was she appointed Secretary of State? Why did she have any prominence beyond being first lady? Because Republicans never liked her, and pissing off Republicans makes you a bigger deal in Democratic circles. Why is AOC so prominent? She upsets Republicans. Why is Rachel Levine now a 4-Star Admiral? To troll Republicans. Why was Andrew Cuomo given an Emmy? You have to see the pattern by now.
Also its worth asking the question what exactly the left did that was so bad that made it worth it to knowingly elect a destructive president just to piss them off. What was electing Trump even a response to? Who exactly where Trump supporters punishing with that and for what reason?
Okay ''social justice warriors'' can be a tad dramatic and annoying. Sure. But that's the very definition of a first world problem. Even at its worst its small scale, mundane and harmless. So electing Trump just to punish the SJW's would be extremely petty. And its worth noting that the democrat party were never about ''the radical left'' which makes it even more weird to elect Trump as some sort of revenge porn against imagined social justice warriors.
People can't use Trump as a rejection of supposed radical leftist ideas of the Democratic party either because Trump was preceded by the center right Obama. The Democrats simply don't have a left wing economic policy that requires ''resisting'' by supporting Trump. With Clinton and now Biden the Democratic party has in fact consistently shown that they'd prefer center right candidates over left leaning ones.
Even if Obama was a disappointment he still ran a relatively tidy ship. His administration was nowhere near the mess that it would justify the desire for an ''outsider'' to come burn everything to the ground and ''do it differently''
There are genuine reasons why the electorate would get restless. Jobs getting outsourced, wealth inequality skyrocketing and rampant corruption but Trump is not a reaction to any of that. He's always been a symbol of them. He's an openly corrupt businessman. He's the sort of guy who'd outsource jobs to save costs and he's definitely been caught not paying his workers. And if big businessmen corrupting politics is such a problem then electing the representative of big business isn't going to solve anything. Even when taking into account that both parties carry blame on these topics then these problems still stem from Republicans more than the Democrats. If you hear of bills brutalizing the working class in favor of the rich then those bills typically come from Republicans, if politicians oppose plans to make society more equal then its usually Republicans leading the resistance against this and Republicans have outsourced plenty of jobs over the years. So if anyone was genuinely concerned about the political class inflicting any of that on the people they should never have ended up with Trump to begin with.
Neither real nor imagined slights of ''the establishment'' would justify knowingly electing the destructive Trump just to punish them.
Hillary Clinton won the primary because being a billionaire donor's best friend has its perks. She's a consummate career politician, been an advocate for policies that a lot of people broadly support, not least of which is CHIP. She's Neo-Liberal through and through, same as the tories in Britain or the Liberal party is Australia. That Republicans don't like her is not the core of her output. I don't like her and she'd be a terrible president, but we haven't had a good president since before I was born, if ever, so...
AOC is prominent because she represents an energetic outlier to neo-liberal policies, advocating extremely popular positions that the left wing in the USA supports over the more mainstream, center-right, neo-liberal Democratic Party. She didn't win her office because of how much she pisses off Republicans, she overrode her entrenched Democratic incumbent with a solid ground game.
Rachel Levine is a 4 star Admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps because she's a consummate public health official. You know that the Surgeon General is an actual General, right? It's not exactly a combat position.
The GOP is the party of projection.
Last edited:
The problem is that you assume we're all as immature and unprincipled as the average Trump supporter.
Wow. Your victim posturing is strong. Because of course none of those people could have earned any of that; it was all just to make small-minded people mad.
Dude, that's paranoia.
Hillary Clinton, let's remember, was a respected and generally popular politician - until ~2015/16 - widely considered in the Beltway even by Republicans as intelligent, diligent, competent and effective. Firstly, she merited that SoS post. Secondly, it is vastly more likely that the political factor that clinched it over other capable candidates was simply that she had a huge amount of political clout within the party: earned by being an intelligent, diligent, competent and effective senator.
AOC is prominent because she's media savvy, smart, young, charismatic, and spot on represents the substantial progressive wing of the Democratic Party, who despite the attempts to suppress them are surely going to win their candidates some seats. She is a serious politician who spends vastly more time on policy than she does insulting Republicans, for all that she's good at the snappy put-downs when she employs them.
None of these come close to the sheer outpouring of bile that certain prominent Republicans have turned out over the last 5-10 years, unparalled chief of which is that gangrenous troll - a liar, cheat, conman, sexual harasser, etc. - that you guys decided was fit to represent your nation in 2016.
Honestly, what do you think separates her from the dozens of other options that are identical in all meaningful ways?
I didn't ask how she got into office. I asked why she's prominent. Effectively, I may ask why r/MurderedByAOC is a subreddit that regularly hits the front page. It's cause she aims substantial snark at conservatives.
That's not the point. A person who fumbled the PA covid response badly is being aggressively promoted up the ranks of government, because rewarding failure will irritate Republicans, who will then be attacked as transphobes if they say anything about it. The PA Department of Health under Levine's leadership concocted a list of what businesses are essential to keep people alive, and forgot to list pharmacies. They tried to close down hotels, and only caved when it was pointed out that out of state doctors fighting the pandemic in Philly needed to sleep somewhere. Shortly thereafter, she violated her own guidance on isolating the elderly in their existing care homes and moved her mother out of a facility and into a nice hotel. The shutdown rules in Pennsylvania were absolute chaos under her leadership. The hospitals didn't even know what was allowed, and were calling vendors the next morning trying to make sure they could maintain their supply chain through the business closures.
When those closures were being relaxed, one county stopped enforcing the rules ahead of schedule. In response, the State Health Department started testing that county for covid an order of magnitude over the surrounding areas. Then having predictably found more cases by doing more testing, they declared it a covid hotspot and extended the shutdowns for just that county. That is policy determined entirely by spite.
And then as the election approached, they (very reasonably) moved voting sites out of elder care facilities. When petitioned for assistance getting ballots in the hands of people confined in a facility that no longer had a voting site, they basically said "ask for a mail in, it's very accessible". They told an actually isolated demographic (that leans right) to just figure it out, while Democrats physically opened up elections offices in Philly (which leans left) for early, in-person voting under the argument that it was more covid safe.
These are all notable controversies that Rachel Levine had her hands on, and now she's been elevated to federal positions. Why do you think that is?
It's not paranoia to acknowledge that spite is popular.
Well, I know who Hillary Clinton is, for starters
She's mostly prominent because conservatives thought she was an easy mark and started having a go at her online. They just sucked at it.
Because the GOP had zero better alternatives? Hate to say it, but "acknowledges the pandemic exists" is a surprisingly high bar to clear these days
It might well be. But it's attendant upon you to demonstrate that spite is the major reason that these people rose to high office. Otherwise your assessment is irrational, and that's the territory of paranoia.
Perhaps just because they like to promote non cis-het white men because they believe in and want to demonstrate diversity. One might argue that's not the best reason to promote someone, but it's still a perfectly valid reason that isn't "to annoy Republicans".
The suggestion that there's no other non cis-het white man capable of the position without that baggage is questionable at best.
Because she is controversial. Since when is "all publicity is good publicity" some crazy conspiracy theory?
If a politician isn't controversial they're toothless. That's not an argument
If I said people voted for Trump for not being toothless, how would you take that?
I'd say you ignored literally everything about the argument on the pathetic conflation of "they're both controversial and therefore equal"