It is self evident that a person who tries to unlwafully stay in power after losing an election is a dangrous person the country is better off without.
Prediction: once Trump wins in 2024, questioning elections, voter fraud, insurrections, resisting 'misinformation', etc. will become the most patriotic, ethical, and vital thing any educated American can do. Ya know, so there's no authoritarianism, fascism, blah blah blah. Gtfoh.
People who say this have very short memories. Everyone who likes to parrot this line of nonsense forgets that Dmeocrats have been through losses like by razor thin margins twice in the past 25 years and in neither of those cases did we resort to political violence and attempts at election theft. In one case, the losing candidate actually presided over the certification of his opponent; in the other Joe Biden himself presided over Trump's certification. Only one close election loser has done what your boy did. One. And it proves him unfit.
Except for the Russia hoax where they crippled the incoming president, jailed his allies and tried to destroy him. Added bonus is when democrats attacked his inauguration but charges were dropped. Double bonus when he was renominated in 2020 his supporters were subject to attacks. But besides that dems totally accepting of election results.
What you and conservative talking heads call "the Russia hoax" wasn't any kind of a hoax. It was shown pretty clearly that the Trump campaign sought assistance from Russia in various ways, responded positively to Russian offers to provide such assistance, provided their campaign internal polling data to a Russian intellegence operative. Among other things. It was also shown that Russia made various efforts to help the Trump campaign, including both a social media campaign and a hack and dump campaign that resulted in a number of indictments of Russian intellegican personnel.
What was NEVER shown is a "meeting of the minds" between Trump or his campaign and Russian officials that would have been necessary to support a chanrge of conspiracy. It's possible that such meeting did happen but that it was not uncovered by investigstors (who documented numerous uncooperative witnesses, documents they could not access etc.); also quite possible that there never was.
But the known facts were still scandalous. It is unconscionable for a presidential candidate to openly seek and receive assistance from a hostile foreign power, for obvious reasons, but it happened here. No hoax.
Democrats did not "attack his inauguration."
" But besides that dems totally accepting of election results."
It is completely reasonable for a losing candidate ewho thinks he was wrionged and can prove that in court to sue (as Trump himself did). You cannot name a single Democrat who sought, as Trump did, to seize or hold an office after losing an election.
Do you get your information from the 51 agents who lied about hunter , the Obama intelligence agents who lied to the public about trump being a Russian asset , the 8 intelligence agencies who told us Russia favored Clinton , crowdstrike who never actually showed the servers were hacked , or just a steady stream of Rachel Maddow. It was hoax all of it , accept it and move on .
But I guess since you keep calling it all lies, you do agree, at least, that the conduct at issue here is bad. If Trump campaign did have a meeting with Russian operatives in Trump Tower because they offered to provide dirt on Hillary, that would be bad and potentially criminal? If Trump's campaign manager did give polling data to Russian intellegince, that would be bad? If Trump did publicly ask Russia to help his campaign, that would be bad?
No one is 'my boy" there chief. I'm a lifelong Democrat, now Independent. Politically adrift because of the bullshit we've all been subjected to. But by all means, stick with 'your team'...they're doin a bang up job!
What we witnessed in those days, and weeks of scrambling ...and vote questioning....and rallies.... and lawsuits.... and accusations of tampering was the entirely predictable reaction of a man who was entirely shocked by what he mistakenly thought was impossible: losing a general election to a bunkered and demented fool who could neither think nor speak.
And in that feckless scrambling he sought to leverage every possible avenue he had to prove the election tainted. He failed.
At least he failed to prove it in the places which counted.
And now he's back to prove in a different way that he should have won, despite what Time magazine called the "secret bipartisan campaign to 'save' the 2020" election.
The truth is that what is 'lawful' or 'unlawful' is far from self-evident. Questioning election outcomes is not unlawful. Arguing about same is not unlawful. Seeking to prove obstruction, or interference, or malfeasance is not unlawful. Objecting to the outcome is not unlawful.
And, as we all know, when conversations are had behind closed doors, all kinds of other leverage is typically applied with more or less success....and like a tree in the forest when no one's there, whether those conversations and leverage points are strictly lawful is unknown.
The truth is, in order for Trump to have somehow remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. That he wished to make that happen is clear...but that his efforts to do so were somehow unlawful is far from it.
" the entirely predictable reaction of a man who was entirely shocked by what he mistakenly thought was impossible: losing a general election to a bunkered and demented fool who could neither think nor speak."
Do you imagine that thinking very very poorly of the election opponent who defeats you is some sort of new thing in American politics? Like, before Trump lost in 2020 is wasn't a routine thing? And that an unfounded belief that you were wronged justifies violence? And you call Trump's critics the deranged ones?
Why would anyone imagine it's new? Of course it's not new; what a silly idea.
Nor am I calling Trump's critics deranged. Somehow you've imagined a conversation which doesn't exist.
In any case simply because a thing happens and has happened before -- but not to you -- that does not mean that even you would not be surprised when it happens again....especially when you're running against a 2-dimensional zombie of a candidate who can't either think or speak.
But all that's beside the point isn't it?
Trump was surprised; he was shocked; and he scrambled in typical Trumpian fashion to prove the election tainted, as I said. And, as noted, he failed to prove it in the places which counted.
The truth is, in order for Trump to have remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. That he wished to make that happen is clear...but that his efforts to do so were somehow unlawful is far from clear....and therefore, it is far from self-evident that the man is -- (shall we snicker a bit?) a dangerous criminal.
Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a standard trope on the right which, I guess, is supposed to mean that if one viscerally objects to a President who tried to steal an election he lost through criminal means, is an adjudicated rapist, etc., then one must be deranged. Even this topic title meantions it!
But I apologize for wrongly putting you in the group of people who say that.
"Trump was surprised; he was shocked; and he scrambled in typical Trumpian fashion to prove the election tainted, as I said. "
So, tell me. When does surprise and shock at having something very bad happen result in a license to engage in crime and encourage violence, and when doesn't it? I was suprised and shocked a couple of months ago when my the company I work for made a substantial payroll error that was bad for me. What types of normally aberrant or criminal behaviors was a justfied in doing because of that?
"The truth is, in order for Trump to have remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. "
You have the tense wrong there - it has not happened yet, and Trump is - for some reason - doing all he can to prevent it.
But there is really no factual dispute about whether Trump ginned up a huge mob and loosed it on the Capitol. There is a legal question - did his actions stay within the constitutional protections offered by the 1st amendment or did they not. But I don't think the legal answer to that question is necessary for any fair-minded person to conclude that, crime or not, that was the behavior of someone who was and is totally unfit for the Presidency.
"especially when you're running against a 2-dimensional zombie of a candidate who can't either think or speak."
I guess you view the right wing media caricature of Joe Biden as the actual version of him, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Are you referencing the $2B in property damage...the 19 confirmed dead... the city blocks in flames....those "mostly peaceful" protests committed by millions (generating 14K arrests but only about 120 convictions) which were validated by Kamala, et al?
Or are you referencing the Trump quote from Jan. 6th: "Go home with Love & in Peace. Remember this day forever!"
You reference the "huge mob"... but which mob is that? The estimated 2000 who protested in the Capitol on January 6th? Or the estimated 15-26M who protested 6 months prior (while burning, looting, and killing all across the United States)?
The problem, of course, is one of proportionality. 4-5-6 days of burning & looting & murder is not equivalent to a handful of hours in which people in Viking headgear, carried their American flags, and put their dirty shoes on Pelosi's desk.
Neither act is right or lawful...but surely you recognize the vast difference between the two (one of those differences being 718 convictions out of the 1200 arrests, out of the 2000 who entered the Capitol (36% and counting.)...vs. 120 convictions out of 14K arrests (1%).
Trump's behavior that day was equally disproportionate and far from blameless. But he did not try to steal the election (he was trying to right what he believed was wrong)...he did not engage in criminal behavior...he did not encourage violence (but, yes, he could have done far more to discourage it)
But all this is not to defend Trump or portray him as some saint or genius or savior....it is to point out that he did not do what so many on the progressive left believe he did. And to more importantly note that Biden and the policy platform on which he stands is far, far worse.
You speak of the 'right wing media caricature' of the man? Have you listened to him? Have you watched him on stage (or even watched him try to get on or off stage)? Have you actually tried to understand what it is he struggles to say (when he's not talking about Corn Pop or Cannibals or Big Rigs)?
Perhaps you've not yet had the misfortune of witnessing your own loved ones suffer from dementia. I can assure you it's terrible. But for many of us, it's also inevitable.
Biden is already there. He's been there, in that lost condition for years and he's getting worse: the vacant stares, the sentences that just die and end in baffled silence, the wandering, the inappropriate language, the intermittent rages, the memory loss, the confusion, the need to have handlers guide him to & fro (speech prompter at the ready).
He is what the Special Counsel said he was, 'an elderly man, with a poor memory, who does not possess a 'state of willfulness'. That is not 'right wing caricature'; that is tragedy made extraordinarily dangerous by the fact that the demented, old man in question is the head of the free world.
Thank you, sir, for making clear in this reply that you have no interest in a good faith conversation on any of these issues. All you are interested in is playing disingenous gotcha games.
Anyway, I appreciate this because I know now that replying to you is not worth the time it takes, as with most Trump defenders.
It is self evident that a person who tries to unlwafully stay in power after losing an election is a dangrous person the country is better off without.
Prediction: once Trump wins in 2024, questioning elections, voter fraud, insurrections, resisting 'misinformation', etc. will become the most patriotic, ethical, and vital thing any educated American can do. Ya know, so there's no authoritarianism, fascism, blah blah blah. Gtfoh.
People who say this have very short memories. Everyone who likes to parrot this line of nonsense forgets that Dmeocrats have been through losses like by razor thin margins twice in the past 25 years and in neither of those cases did we resort to political violence and attempts at election theft. In one case, the losing candidate actually presided over the certification of his opponent; in the other Joe Biden himself presided over Trump's certification. Only one close election loser has done what your boy did. One. And it proves him unfit.
Except for the Russia hoax where they crippled the incoming president, jailed his allies and tried to destroy him. Added bonus is when democrats attacked his inauguration but charges were dropped. Double bonus when he was renominated in 2020 his supporters were subject to attacks. But besides that dems totally accepting of election results.
What you and conservative talking heads call "the Russia hoax" wasn't any kind of a hoax. It was shown pretty clearly that the Trump campaign sought assistance from Russia in various ways, responded positively to Russian offers to provide such assistance, provided their campaign internal polling data to a Russian intellegence operative. Among other things. It was also shown that Russia made various efforts to help the Trump campaign, including both a social media campaign and a hack and dump campaign that resulted in a number of indictments of Russian intellegican personnel.
What was NEVER shown is a "meeting of the minds" between Trump or his campaign and Russian officials that would have been necessary to support a chanrge of conspiracy. It's possible that such meeting did happen but that it was not uncovered by investigstors (who documented numerous uncooperative witnesses, documents they could not access etc.); also quite possible that there never was.
But the known facts were still scandalous. It is unconscionable for a presidential candidate to openly seek and receive assistance from a hostile foreign power, for obvious reasons, but it happened here. No hoax.
Democrats did not "attack his inauguration."
" But besides that dems totally accepting of election results."
It is completely reasonable for a losing candidate ewho thinks he was wrionged and can prove that in court to sue (as Trump himself did). You cannot name a single Democrat who sought, as Trump did, to seize or hold an office after losing an election.
Do you get your information from the 51 agents who lied about hunter , the Obama intelligence agents who lied to the public about trump being a Russian asset , the 8 intelligence agencies who told us Russia favored Clinton , crowdstrike who never actually showed the servers were hacked , or just a steady stream of Rachel Maddow. It was hoax all of it , accept it and move on .
Well, I know where you get your information from.
But I guess since you keep calling it all lies, you do agree, at least, that the conduct at issue here is bad. If Trump campaign did have a meeting with Russian operatives in Trump Tower because they offered to provide dirt on Hillary, that would be bad and potentially criminal? If Trump's campaign manager did give polling data to Russian intellegince, that would be bad? If Trump did publicly ask Russia to help his campaign, that would be bad?
No one is 'my boy" there chief. I'm a lifelong Democrat, now Independent. Politically adrift because of the bullshit we've all been subjected to. But by all means, stick with 'your team'...they're doin a bang up job!
Not going to defend your original comment I see.
How does one defend a prediction?
Lol. And why would one need to?
Your prediction is based on your own insecurities and ignores facts. I agree, not wise to defense. I withdraw the comment.
Self-evident?
What we witnessed in those days, and weeks of scrambling ...and vote questioning....and rallies.... and lawsuits.... and accusations of tampering was the entirely predictable reaction of a man who was entirely shocked by what he mistakenly thought was impossible: losing a general election to a bunkered and demented fool who could neither think nor speak.
And in that feckless scrambling he sought to leverage every possible avenue he had to prove the election tainted. He failed.
At least he failed to prove it in the places which counted.
And now he's back to prove in a different way that he should have won, despite what Time magazine called the "secret bipartisan campaign to 'save' the 2020" election.
The truth is that what is 'lawful' or 'unlawful' is far from self-evident. Questioning election outcomes is not unlawful. Arguing about same is not unlawful. Seeking to prove obstruction, or interference, or malfeasance is not unlawful. Objecting to the outcome is not unlawful.
And, as we all know, when conversations are had behind closed doors, all kinds of other leverage is typically applied with more or less success....and like a tree in the forest when no one's there, whether those conversations and leverage points are strictly lawful is unknown.
The truth is, in order for Trump to have somehow remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. That he wished to make that happen is clear...but that his efforts to do so were somehow unlawful is far from it.
" the entirely predictable reaction of a man who was entirely shocked by what he mistakenly thought was impossible: losing a general election to a bunkered and demented fool who could neither think nor speak."
Do you imagine that thinking very very poorly of the election opponent who defeats you is some sort of new thing in American politics? Like, before Trump lost in 2020 is wasn't a routine thing? And that an unfounded belief that you were wronged justifies violence? And you call Trump's critics the deranged ones?
Why would anyone imagine it's new? Of course it's not new; what a silly idea.
Nor am I calling Trump's critics deranged. Somehow you've imagined a conversation which doesn't exist.
In any case simply because a thing happens and has happened before -- but not to you -- that does not mean that even you would not be surprised when it happens again....especially when you're running against a 2-dimensional zombie of a candidate who can't either think or speak.
But all that's beside the point isn't it?
Trump was surprised; he was shocked; and he scrambled in typical Trumpian fashion to prove the election tainted, as I said. And, as noted, he failed to prove it in the places which counted.
The truth is, in order for Trump to have remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. That he wished to make that happen is clear...but that his efforts to do so were somehow unlawful is far from clear....and therefore, it is far from self-evident that the man is -- (shall we snicker a bit?) a dangerous criminal.
"Nor am I calling Trump's critics deranged."
Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a standard trope on the right which, I guess, is supposed to mean that if one viscerally objects to a President who tried to steal an election he lost through criminal means, is an adjudicated rapist, etc., then one must be deranged. Even this topic title meantions it!
But I apologize for wrongly putting you in the group of people who say that.
"Trump was surprised; he was shocked; and he scrambled in typical Trumpian fashion to prove the election tainted, as I said. "
So, tell me. When does surprise and shock at having something very bad happen result in a license to engage in crime and encourage violence, and when doesn't it? I was suprised and shocked a couple of months ago when my the company I work for made a substantial payroll error that was bad for me. What types of normally aberrant or criminal behaviors was a justfied in doing because of that?
"The truth is, in order for Trump to have remained in-power, the electoral result would have had to have been proved, lawfully, to be invalid. That did not happen. "
You have the tense wrong there - it has not happened yet, and Trump is - for some reason - doing all he can to prevent it.
But there is really no factual dispute about whether Trump ginned up a huge mob and loosed it on the Capitol. There is a legal question - did his actions stay within the constitutional protections offered by the 1st amendment or did they not. But I don't think the legal answer to that question is necessary for any fair-minded person to conclude that, crime or not, that was the behavior of someone who was and is totally unfit for the Presidency.
"especially when you're running against a 2-dimensional zombie of a candidate who can't either think or speak."
I guess you view the right wing media caricature of Joe Biden as the actual version of him, when nothing could be further from the truth.
What crime? What violence did he encourage?
Are you referencing the $2B in property damage...the 19 confirmed dead... the city blocks in flames....those "mostly peaceful" protests committed by millions (generating 14K arrests but only about 120 convictions) which were validated by Kamala, et al?
Or are you referencing the Trump quote from Jan. 6th: "Go home with Love & in Peace. Remember this day forever!"
You reference the "huge mob"... but which mob is that? The estimated 2000 who protested in the Capitol on January 6th? Or the estimated 15-26M who protested 6 months prior (while burning, looting, and killing all across the United States)?
The problem, of course, is one of proportionality. 4-5-6 days of burning & looting & murder is not equivalent to a handful of hours in which people in Viking headgear, carried their American flags, and put their dirty shoes on Pelosi's desk.
Neither act is right or lawful...but surely you recognize the vast difference between the two (one of those differences being 718 convictions out of the 1200 arrests, out of the 2000 who entered the Capitol (36% and counting.)...vs. 120 convictions out of 14K arrests (1%).
Trump's behavior that day was equally disproportionate and far from blameless. But he did not try to steal the election (he was trying to right what he believed was wrong)...he did not engage in criminal behavior...he did not encourage violence (but, yes, he could have done far more to discourage it)
But all this is not to defend Trump or portray him as some saint or genius or savior....it is to point out that he did not do what so many on the progressive left believe he did. And to more importantly note that Biden and the policy platform on which he stands is far, far worse.
You speak of the 'right wing media caricature' of the man? Have you listened to him? Have you watched him on stage (or even watched him try to get on or off stage)? Have you actually tried to understand what it is he struggles to say (when he's not talking about Corn Pop or Cannibals or Big Rigs)?
Perhaps you've not yet had the misfortune of witnessing your own loved ones suffer from dementia. I can assure you it's terrible. But for many of us, it's also inevitable.
Biden is already there. He's been there, in that lost condition for years and he's getting worse: the vacant stares, the sentences that just die and end in baffled silence, the wandering, the inappropriate language, the intermittent rages, the memory loss, the confusion, the need to have handlers guide him to & fro (speech prompter at the ready).
He is what the Special Counsel said he was, 'an elderly man, with a poor memory, who does not possess a 'state of willfulness'. That is not 'right wing caricature'; that is tragedy made extraordinarily dangerous by the fact that the demented, old man in question is the head of the free world.
"What crime? What violence did he encourage?"
Thank you, sir, for making clear in this reply that you have no interest in a good faith conversation on any of these issues. All you are interested in is playing disingenous gotcha games.
Anyway, I appreciate this because I know now that replying to you is not worth the time it takes, as with most Trump defenders.