Ok, so we're going to take every event that has had the insurrection act invoked against it as an insurrection.
I know perfectly well you have no interest in approaching this honestly and seriously but merely in protecting your party, and that lame and facile little chunk of gobshitery really sums it up.
And you're wrong.
Just to be clear here, thousands of people assaulted the Capitol whilst it was in the middle of a confirmation session for the next President. The explicit aim of the display was impress on the VP and legislators that they should not confirm Joe Biden according to lawful process. There was no credible evidence the election was fraudulent and thus no legitimate reason to deny the confirmation of Biden's presidency. What's "warped" is to not see that violent attempt at interference / disruption as an assault on both the rule of law and the authority of the state. This is exactly where the word "insurrection" usually would apply (some have even suggested the stronger term "attempted coup"). And in terms of US law, it is in line with other instances which have also effectively been deemed insurrections. I find it very instructive that you are afraid for the USA to even ask whether it qualifies as insurrection.
I didn't ask if it qualifies as an insurrection, I asked you if you thought other things were insurrections. I know that you don't, I'd bet you'd call most of them miscarriages of justice, which is evidence that you aren't approaching this rationally. You don't see other things considered insurrections and conclude this was one by comparison, rather you believe this was one to begin with and are working backwards from that conclusions. You're using supporting arguments that you wouldn't even believe if they didn't support your desired conclusions.
Firstly, you think you know me, but you really don't: as that comment amply demonstrates.
More likely what's actually going on is that you like to pretend that you know what other people think as a form of psychological defence to discount or minimise what they say and make you feel safer in your own beliefs.
Again, since when is marching considered violence or insurrection? There's marches all the time. BLM marches involved violence, why not arrest the organizers?
Thousands of people didn't assault the Capitol nor was it an attempted coup. This exaggeration is ridiculous which goes hand in hand with downplaying of events when it's something on the "left" side. Far more people assaulted federal buildings during BLM for example, I don't see you repeatedly sharing your disgust for that 3 years later like you do for January 6th. Some people of the BLM protest literally took over part of a city for nearly a month. But January 6th was a coup when they couldn't even delay the confirmation until the next day let alone do anything that could've possibly led to Biden somehow not getting confirmed at all? You're acting like Trump had any chance (even if a 1% chance) of staying in power when it was 0% chance the whole time. And the democrats are still pushing that narrative and claiming democracy is at stake this presidential election. Hillary Clinton even said that a Trump victory would be the end of democracy. This is just ridiculous rhetoric only throws more gasoline on the fire of the divide in America.
Are you forgetting the "fight like hell"? Fighting to overturn an election loss is indeed insurrection.
When I identify someone else's opinions, they tend to do exactly what you did right here: say that I'm wrong, and then offer no reason for why. If I was actually wrong about what you think, you'd tell me why I'm wrong.
No, it's not, it's really about you. I can see Trump's failings just fine while also denying the untrue ones.
They didn't just march. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that's all they'd done.
When you start a paragraph with something so plainly untrue, it's hard to bother with the rest.
It's funny how you complain about LBJ when you share his tactic of throwing out shit just to try and make someone deny it. You might learn that the response is frequently that people just ignore it.
What you mean by this is you accept all the small stuff, but suddenly turn into his staunchest defender on the big stuff, which is to say the "this guy should not be president" issues. It seems to me to be the common con-job of feigning reasonableness and neutrality to pretend one is not absolutely partisan. You say you see his failings just fine, and yet when it comes to the big stuff, you actually stop seeing those flaws because you hand him a load of favourable interpretations inconsistent with his decades-long patterns of behaviour. That is a form of irrationality.
How many cases are there against Trump? How many charges? And I've said like 3 are bullcrap, maybe?
Based on physical characteristics that are literally tied to sex...
Are you forgetting?
It's not about what they did, it's about what Trump did or didn't do.
And that's exactly what I mean. Firstly to claim to recognise a pattern of behaviour, but then oh so conveniently put in the strong doubt column the one that actually got to court. Because it would be awful to have a Republican president who'd been found responsible of sexual assault, wouldn't it? As long as he's merely accused, that awkwardness can be put aside.
Because most of these cases are credible. Some, e.g. Ukraine, are strong. (Whilst we're on irrationality, your bizarre little narrative on the Ukraine controversy is ridiculous. Both its manufacture and the strength with which you cling to it is what I mean by how hard it can be to see one's own irrationality.) Throughout that, you devoted huge amounts of time to attacking Adam Schiff. You've complained about Adam Schiff on this forum more than you have ever discussed Trump's failings, despite his almost total comparative triviality. Why is that? And I think we all know it's an attempt to distract from and explain away charges against Trump. You do this every time: you employ selective cynicism and throw everyone under the bus to protect Trump when it matters.
It didn't actually get to court though. A defamation case got to court, and they awarded her a pile of money. If this were an assault case, and they found him guilty to a much, much higher standard, I'd likely have a different opinion.
It's not my fault you defend Adam Schiff. That argument happened because you can't admit a single Democrat lied about Trump. When the evidence all came out, there was no smoking gun of Trump with Russia, no smoking gun of Trump blackmailing Ukraine, private correspondence actively suggesting Trump didn't blackmail Ukraine, Zelensky's public statement that Trump never threatened to withhold the aid from them, and you're still buying that Schiff has "beyond circumstantial evidence" that he just never shared? You ask me if Trump likely committed sexual and financial crimes in his life, I'd say absolutely. I ask you if a single Democratic politician told a lie about their political opposition, and you refuse to give an inch.
Which are changeable, and are not inherent or definitive of sex. They just correlate.
They literally can. That's what they did. So, you still apparently believe states can't uphold the constitution.
You can. He didn't, which is why when violence unfolded and he was informed it was happening in his name, he didn't object-- he stood by.
I couldn't give a shit about Adam Schiff: he's your weird obsession, and your distraction from all the other witnesses, evidence and testimony that actually matter. It's one of the ironies of you making out I have a Trump problem when you made up a pantomime villain to suit you. You blab and blab on about lying Democrats because then you don't have to engage with evidence. And still there you are, even when it's pointed out to you, Democrats this and Democrats that like a stuck record.
... understands statecraft and diplomacy. You obviously do not.
Estimates are that ~2000 people illegally invaded the Capitol, and over 1200 have been charged. So that's thousands as an objective fact.
You brought up Adam Schiff. You are deflecting from the evidence. You are wrong, and you are deluding yourself.
That is remarkable hypocrisy from a man who weighed in on a discussion about what an insurrection might be without offering any useful comment on what it might be, and here we are umpteen comments later with still precisely nothing.
