" 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.
If you can't answer what crime Trump committed or what violence he encouraged, that inability seems entirely consistent with either an utter lack of evidence or an utter lack of good faith.
If you can't recognize the proportionality problem...which is, in fact, evidence of a politically-motivated prosecution aimed entirely at election interference, then again we're dealing with True Belief (in the Eric Hoffer sense) as opposed to Reasoned Belief.
And, needless to say, your continued blind stereotyping of those who don't parrot your views only underlines your refusal to actually engage with the facts of the material at hand.
None of this serves you well my friend. Good luck as you toddle down that road to learn.
Look - he's been indicted. What crimes do I think he's committed? Start with the indictments. I get you have your "reasons" for dismising those.
It's also obvious to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut that Trump caused a riot. Whether he's criminally responsible for that is a more challenging question, but even if the answer is no, that is among the furthest things from "fit to serve as POTUS" that I can think of.
" 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.
If you can't answer what crime Trump committed or what violence he encouraged, that inability seems entirely consistent with either an utter lack of evidence or an utter lack of good faith.
If you can't recognize the proportionality problem...which is, in fact, evidence of a politically-motivated prosecution aimed entirely at election interference, then again we're dealing with True Belief (in the Eric Hoffer sense) as opposed to Reasoned Belief.
And, needless to say, your continued blind stereotyping of those who don't parrot your views only underlines your refusal to actually engage with the facts of the material at hand.
None of this serves you well my friend. Good luck as you toddle down that road to learn.
Look - he's been indicted. What crimes do I think he's committed? Start with the indictments. I get you have your "reasons" for dismising those.
It's also obvious to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut that Trump caused a riot. Whether he's criminally responsible for that is a more challenging question, but even if the answer is no, that is among the furthest things from "fit to serve as POTUS" that I can think of.
Anyway, go ahead and change the subject now.