I am no Trumper but it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim to think 1) Jan 6th was an insurrection, and 2) Trump incited it. What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot. A riot is not an insurrection. That guy in the Viking hat was going to take over the country? It's absurd. Yes there were a few whack-jobs who were cosplaying at revolution. You can find those people peppering demonstrations on both sides. It doesn't make it an insurrection.
Meanwhile Trump asked the crowd to demonstrate peacefully. Some insurrectionist. Democrats played up Jan 6 for political purposes and the media played along as usual. The End.
So I've had my fun with this thread and am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")
"What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot."
Do you think the Capitol and Metropolitan police who fought for 3 hours would agree with your characterization that the crowd was "goofy?" I have my doubts. Leaving that aside, you apparently do agree that the crowd was "whipped up into a riot" but excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech. I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. He egged the crowd on with a tweet about Pence. He has never even claimed to have involved himself in the deploying of police or troops to the Capitol to regain control, which is one of the biggest Presidential failures in US history in and of itself, but also gives a good sense of what Trump's state of mind was. Also, when he finally did call on the mob to go home, he told the rioters that he loved them, another tell.
What you ignore is that the crowd was one piece of a larger scheme involivng pressure on the VP and members of Congress, forged electoral certificates, and (earlier) pressure on states not to certify their elections.
"am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")"
Sorry you felt condescended to but it was a statement of fact.
"excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech"
No, if you read more carefully you'll see that I did not "excuse" him. I said the head insurrectionist doesn't tell insurrectionists to behave peacefully. Trump behaved badly, as usual, but he was not telling the crowd to storm inside the Capitol, much less engage in armed rebellion against the United States.
"I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. "
You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country.
"You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country."
I haven't said I want Trump struck from the ballot. For me it is a hard question, because the case that he is disqualified under the 14th amendment is strong.
But I'll just ask you this, rather than making any inferences:
Do you really think it was in any way defensible for the President of the United States to spend the 3 hours of of the overruning of the Capitol doing nothing to help? The literal Commander in Chief just sitting there, watching, occasionally tweeting, and not doing any of the many obvious things one would expect a President to do in the event of an attack on a major seat of government in the US?
I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but a gross dereliction of duty.
Yes, I agree it was a gross dereliction of duty. His impeachment should have passed and might have had it been limited to Trump and his dereliction of duty to see the laws faithfully enforced. But that is not the same as leading an insurrection, which is what he was charged with in the impeachment article, and which thereby implicated all the other "insurrectionists," anyone might care to name, including the mob who mainly were a pretty goofy bunch if you ask me. Both Republicans and Democrats together acted in ways that doomed that impeachment. If Trump comes back into power, the option will still be available if needed. I trust that part of the Constitution much more than the 14th, Section 3.
I am no Trumper but it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim to think 1) Jan 6th was an insurrection, and 2) Trump incited it. What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot. A riot is not an insurrection. That guy in the Viking hat was going to take over the country? It's absurd. Yes there were a few whack-jobs who were cosplaying at revolution. You can find those people peppering demonstrations on both sides. It doesn't make it an insurrection.
Meanwhile Trump asked the crowd to demonstrate peacefully. Some insurrectionist. Democrats played up Jan 6 for political purposes and the media played along as usual. The End.
So I've had my fun with this thread and am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")
"What you had on Jan 6 was a goofy crowd of deluded hard-core Trump supporters whipped up into a riot."
Do you think the Capitol and Metropolitan police who fought for 3 hours would agree with your characterization that the crowd was "goofy?" I have my doubts. Leaving that aside, you apparently do agree that the crowd was "whipped up into a riot" but excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech. I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. He egged the crowd on with a tweet about Pence. He has never even claimed to have involved himself in the deploying of police or troops to the Capitol to regain control, which is one of the biggest Presidential failures in US history in and of itself, but also gives a good sense of what Trump's state of mind was. Also, when he finally did call on the mob to go home, he told the rioters that he loved them, another tell.
What you ignore is that the crowd was one piece of a larger scheme involivng pressure on the VP and members of Congress, forged electoral certificates, and (earlier) pressure on states not to certify their elections.
"am replying only because you felt the need not just to state your view but to be condescending ("it blows my mind that otherwise intelligent people claim...")"
Sorry you felt condescended to but it was a statement of fact.
"excuse Trump from the whipping up of the crowd because he said the word "peacefully" one time in an hour long speech"
No, if you read more carefully you'll see that I did not "excuse" him. I said the head insurrectionist doesn't tell insurrectionists to behave peacefully. Trump behaved badly, as usual, but he was not telling the crowd to storm inside the Capitol, much less engage in armed rebellion against the United States.
"I think one can infer from his actions during the overuning of the Capitol that he supported what happened there. "
You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country.
"You reach a lot of conclusions by inference. An impressive confidence you have in your inferences too, to want to disenfranchise half the country."
I haven't said I want Trump struck from the ballot. For me it is a hard question, because the case that he is disqualified under the 14th amendment is strong.
But I'll just ask you this, rather than making any inferences:
Do you really think it was in any way defensible for the President of the United States to spend the 3 hours of of the overruning of the Capitol doing nothing to help? The literal Commander in Chief just sitting there, watching, occasionally tweeting, and not doing any of the many obvious things one would expect a President to do in the event of an attack on a major seat of government in the US?
I don't see how anyone can view that as anything but a gross dereliction of duty.
Yes, I agree it was a gross dereliction of duty. His impeachment should have passed and might have had it been limited to Trump and his dereliction of duty to see the laws faithfully enforced. But that is not the same as leading an insurrection, which is what he was charged with in the impeachment article, and which thereby implicated all the other "insurrectionists," anyone might care to name, including the mob who mainly were a pretty goofy bunch if you ask me. Both Republicans and Democrats together acted in ways that doomed that impeachment. If Trump comes back into power, the option will still be available if needed. I trust that part of the Constitution much more than the 14th, Section 3.
"Do you really think it was in any way defensible"
No, as I say Trump behaved badly as usual. Among the reasons I don't intend to vote for him.