Steam Flyer

How Serious were the events of Jan 6, 2021

How Serious were the events of Jan 6, 2021  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. How would you most accurately described the crowd of people surging into and throughout the Capitol Building / Congress?

    • It was an armed insurrection against the Constitutional government of the USA
      56
    • It was a legal protest that got a little over-excited
      5
    • It was patriotic Americans performing their duty as citizens to overthrow tyrants
      0
  2. 2. What is the most important evidence to support your answer for the question above?

    • The presence of weapons & bombs, the fatalities, the declared intention of killing Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi
      55
    • The smearing of feces around the inside of the halls of Congress
      4
    • The funny selfies and posed photos on social media of the protestors, who were invited in by the guards
      9
  3. 3. What degree of responsibility does President Trump bear for these events?

    • He intentionally to sabotaged Capitol security thru his newly-appointed Acting SecDef and others, then incited the mob to violence, then called his most loyal Sneator to delay so the mob could catch Congress
      46
    • He did not intentionally start an armed rebellion but is like the Captain of a ship and should be considered responisible
      15
    • Trump did not intend his followers to get so far out of hand, and is only concerned about ensuring honest & fair elections
      0
    • He has no responsibility for it, at all
      1
  4. 4. What consequences should the Republican Party pay for supporting the insurrection, like cheering Trump the day after and voting against his impeachment?

    • They should be held legally accountable for any crimes like insurrection and perjury of their oath to the Constitution; President Trump should be impeached and convicted
      52
    • They should get some consideration for their loyalty, but the worst of them should be lightly punished because to hold them fully accountable would be divisive and hateful
      6
    • The voters should decide
      4


Recommended Posts

Personally, if it were up to me as Czar of Impeachment, I'd put President Trump and Guiliani and Alex Jones and Don Jr and probably Mark Meadows in cages in public squares so that citizens passing by could piss on them and poke them with sticks

But that's not in the Constitution so we'll have to see what shakes out of our convoluted legal system

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should make good use of that makeshift gallows left behind to show Republicans just what justice for conspiracy to overthrow a legal government looks like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AOC released a video where she claimed that she genuinely believed there was a possibility she would not get out of there alive, due to obvious sympathizers on the Republican side, and that they would give up her location.

It is a shame that we are not pulling out all the stops.  The specific rioters that were looking for lawmakers, the President who called them to action, and anyone (including congressman) that provided material and/or logistical support have committed Treason.  They need to be tried as such, and if found guilty, suffer consequences just short of being taken out and shot.  And maybe we can even include THAT on the table, depending on what the current penalty is.  Trump suggested it for The Whistleblower. Maybe he thinks it IS on the table as he is giving us speeches of canned horseshit disavowing the actions of people who he claimed to "love" and who were "special" just a week ago.  If this impeachment has accomplished anything it sure as shit got him to shut his mouth.

I want people scared. I want them absolutely fucking terrified.  I want them, their offspring, and their grand kids to not let committing such an offense again even enter their minds. 

 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How serious? For over 200 years the US has had a regularly scheduled peaceful transition of power, with a couple notable exceptions incl civil war and assassinations. Since people died, we can put this one into the very short column of non-peaceful transition of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How serious? For over 200 years the US has had a regularly scheduled peaceful transition of power, with a couple notable exceptions incl civil war and assassinations. Since people died, we can put this one into the very short column of non-peaceful transition of power.

Actually, during the Civil War, the Lincoln Administration had several people advocating for delay of the election but Lincoln and most of his Cabinet would not even consider it. And it was widely considered that the losses in the war made him unpopular enough that he would lose. The Democratic candidate was advocating for a negotiated peace ie letting the South win, and was expected to win the election by a large margin.

As it happened Lincoln committed wide spread voter fraud and encouraged riots won the election thanks to some Union victories just before the election and some very good public relations work getting people to agree with his policies

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the first person bashed upon the first window  he should have been shot dead by multiple bullets. 
The first person to breach the building should have been exterminated. 
If it is true the POTUS or ANYONE was celebrating the event, the Secret Service should have immediately arrested that person. 
 

When the Capitol police were overrun, the reinforcements should have arrived as SWAT and immediately started exterminating those who were doing anything other than fleeing the building and rounding up thisecwho were fleeing for prosecution. 
 

and I am generally a pacifist 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Actually, during the Civil War, the Lincoln Administration had several people advocating for delay of the election but Lincoln and most of his Cabinet would not even consider it. And it was widely considered that the losses in the war made him unpopular enough that he would lose. The Democratic candidate was advocating for a negotiated peace ie letting the South win, and was expected to win the election by a large margin.

As it happened Lincoln committed wide spread voter fraud and encouraged riots won the election thanks to some Union victories just before the election and some very good public relations work getting people to agree with his policies

- DSK

I don't think anyone would say that it was a normal peaceful transition showing the power of democracy when we were busy shooting each other over the right to own people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How serious? For over 200 years the US has had a regularly scheduled peaceful transition of power, with a couple notable exceptions incl civil war and assassinations. Since people died, we can put this one into the very short column of non-peaceful transition of power.

It resulted in five people dead, in a direct assault on the Legislative branch, sent by the head of the Executive branch. I have no problem seeing every person who took so much as a single step beyond the barriers up the steps to the Capitol locked away for the 20 year prize given for Seditious Conspiracy, and that's if they don't ding them all for felony murder somehow. 

And the people who sent them should go right up the river with them. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I don't think anyone would say that it was a normal peaceful transition showing the power of democracy when we were busy shooting each other over the right to own people.

??

The government of the United States carried on as normal. If McClellan had won, there would have been a peaceful transition to his administration.

The states that were currently in rebellion had a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo to Constitutionalize the army occupation; but I don't see any complaint from that direction as legit. Now, the Reconstruction had a lot of bumps......

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a speech delivered by US Grant in 1876:

” In a republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign—the people— should possess intelligence. The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as one Nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.”

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

From a speech delivered by US Grant in 1876:

” In a republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign—the people— should possess intelligence. The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as one Nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.”

Old US Grant certainly got his wish, because that's where we are now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jerseyguy said:

From a speech delivered by US Grant in 1876:

” In a republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign—the people— should possess intelligence. The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as one Nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other.”

+1

It's why some of my goper work colleagues believe the cost of college education should stay high.  'Don't want a generation of kids to learn PC and wokeism.

If they can't afford an education,  they go join the military instead, where they will get a proper education. 

Oh,  and compulsory prayers at school.  As little sex Ed as possible.  If she gets pregnant, we'll make sure the fetus gets born no matter what,  but after that you're on your own.  Kids will happily become a lowly grunt in the military to get away from family and community poverty. 

It's a finely tuned system,  it works. Keep breeding cheap uneducated cannon fodder, it's the best. 

Ffs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:

 

I want people scared. I want them absolutely fucking terrified.  I want them, their offspring, and their grand kids to not let committing such an offense again even enter their minds. 

 

We already have a death penalty....   how is that working at deterring murders?

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

I'm in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

We already have a death penalty....   how is that working at deterring murders?

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

scared of a little law-n-order now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:

AOC released a video where she claimed that she genuinely believed there was a possibility she would not get out of there alive, due to obvious sympathizers on the Republican side, and that they would give up her location.

It is a shame that we are not pulling out all the stops.  The specific rioters that were looking for lawmakers, the President who called them to action, and anyone (including congressman) that provided material and/or logistical support have committed Treason.  They need to be tried as such, and if found guilty, suffer consequences just short of being taken out and shot.  And maybe we can even include THAT on the table, depending on what the current penalty is.  Trump suggested it for The Whistleblower. Maybe he thinks it IS on the table as he is giving us speeches of canned horseshit disavowing the actions of people who he claimed to "love" and who were "special" just a week ago.  If this impeachment has accomplished anything it sure as shit got him to shut his mouth.

I want people scared. I want them absolutely fucking terrified.  I want them, their offspring, and their grand kids to not let committing such an offense again even enter their minds. 

 

Fortunately for you, the US is much closer to being a full on fascist police state than you realise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, dorydude said:

Fortunately for you, the US is much closer to being a full on fascist police state than you realise.

We're not as close to it now as were at 3pm last Wednesday, Jan 6.

AFAIK all the insurrectionists can be given the death penalty. I can dream up a lot of appropriate punishments for people who advocate things like skinning the children of liberals alive in front of their parents(as posted on Parler), but our Constitution rules out "cruel and unusual"

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately for us, we're again moving farther away from being a fascist police state now than it was when there was a possibility that Trump would be the next POTUS.

A return to Rule of Law will help as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to clarify my stance on question 4.    The Representatives and Senators that decided to ignore the courts and secretaries of state and pretend the election wasn't fair, the anti American congressmen that voted against transition of power on lies, should face censure.   If I thought it possible, I'd 14th amendment them.   The remainder of the Republican party that tried to walk the tightrope between treason and popularity merely deserve scorn.   The handful that acted as loyal Americans should get some praise, even by those that disagree with their policy or question their motives (Sen Romney).   Its hard for a politician to do the right thing.  Its damn near impossible for most Republicans to rise above their character.   Praise them when it happens.

Fortunately Trump lacked the courage to lead his insurrection to the capital.     He still went beyond plausible deniability.   There is no doubt he would have been happy to retain leadership and quietly push Mr. Pence aside if their minions had captured Rep Pelosi and VP Pence, coercing an overthrow of democracy.   Its impossible to predict when a mob will do what it says it will do.   If they had actually murdered the second and third in line for power nobody here can seriously claim Trump would have disavowed their actions and resigned in protest, after assuring no Republican cabinet member could seize power on his behalf.   

Its hard to believe the security failure was racist bias (armed angry white people threatening to kill the vice president aren't dangerous like civil rights protesters).   I think there was a deliberate attempt by several people in authority to end democracy in favor of one party rule.   They should face criminal prosecution.   As I predicted, Trump's minions are now moving to softer targets, the state capitals.     I do think Sunday will be a relative de-escalation.    No state capitals will be destroyed and few people will die.   I hope I'm right.  My track record seems pretty good so far.   Steam was the other person on these forums I recall sounding the warning of attempted coup ahead of time.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm in.

Are you sure?  Do you have that much hate in you to do this?

3 minutes ago, Lark said:

  No state capitals being destroyed and few people will die.   I hope I'm right.  My track record seems pretty good so far.   Steam was the other person on these forums I recall sounding the warning of attempted coup ahead of time.  

Soft Targets.... How many Tim McVeigh wannabes are out there?  It is a scary thought.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

We're not as close to it now as were at 3pm last Wednesday, Jan 6.

AFAIK all the insurrectionists can be given the death penalty. I can dream up a lot of appropriate punishments for people who advocate things like skinning the children of liberals alive in front of their parents(as posted on Parler), but our Constitution rules out "cruel and unusual"

- DSK

cruel and unusual are just a doj memo......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Are you sure?  Do you have that much hate in you to do this?

why does it have to be hate? is that what drives those whose job it is to administer the death penalty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ease the sheet. said:

why does it have to be hate? is that what drives those whose job it is to administer the death penalty?

So you would be okay being the one pulling the switch? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Are you sure?  Do you have that much hate in you to do this?

Thanks, Nacra. I can't speak for Sloop, but my sudden support of the death penalty is really just me venting.

Really. Thank you for the reminder.

How about Gitmo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

So you would be okay being the one pulling the switch? 

that wasn't your original question.

18 minutes ago, nacradriver said:
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

 

Are you sure?  Do you have that much hate in you to do this?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, nacradriver said:
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

I'm in.

Are you sure?  Do you have that much hate in you to do this?

Not necessarily hate. Sense of justice. Civic obligation.

If one's society uses the death penalty as a punishment for heinous crimes, then you're participating in it just by being a citizen here.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

that wasn't your original question.

Read up thread....  may put it in context for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nacradriver said:

Read up thread....  may put it in context for you.

i did. yours was the only post that mentioned hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

AFAIK all the insurrectionists can be given the death penalty. I can dream up a lot of appropriate punishments for people who advocate things like skinning the children of liberals alive in front of their parents(as posted on Parler), but our Constitution rules out "cruel and unusual"

 

cruel and unusual are just a doj memo......

I figure you're being sarcastic, but I can't resist:

1999px-Amendment_8.jpg

8th Amendment (I confess I needed a little bit of a refresher myself) "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."

Like everything else, that phrase is subject to interpretation, but one thing I love about the US Constitution, most of is written in pretty clear English.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a failed coup meant to take over the USA, and ALL persons involved should be treated with  treason , from the piece of shit on down,

had they won we'd be all giving it the Nazi salute to donnie  as that's what he wanted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I figure you're being sarcastic, but I can't resist:

1999px-Amendment_8.jpg

8th Amendment (I confess I needed a little bit of a refresher myself) "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted."

Like everything else, that phrase is subject to interpretation, but one thing I love about the US Constitution, most of is written in pretty clear English.

- DSK

one mans cruel and unusual is another mans sex life.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Not for nothing said:

This was a failed coup meant to take over the USA, and ALL persons involved should be treated with  treason , from the piece of shit on down,

had they won we'd be all giving it the Nazi salute to donnie  as that's what he wanted

Had Trump had the balls, I think this might have gone a different way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

a tad loaded steamer.

 

not a phrase i can appreciate.

That's over my head. All I meant was while I agree with the first option Q1 andQ2

3 and 4 are manipulative. The sort of dishonest polling you'd not expect from anyone wanting a genuine picture . Pollees are being steered to a desired outcome. I don't Appreciate that. So..I'm not doing the poll. 

3. What degree of responsibility does President Trump bear for these events?

  • He intentionally tried to delay or upset the vote by inciting the mob to violence, then called his most loyal Sneator to delay so the mob could catch Congress
  • This goes a little far
  • He did not intentionally start an armed rebellion but is like the Captain of a ship and should be considered responisible
  • This is too weak.
  • Trump did not intend his followers to get so far out of hand, and is only concerned about ensuring honest & fair elections
  • A half truth. The first half may be true, the second half ia BS
  • He has no responsibility for it, at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Had Trump had the balls, I think this might have gone a different way.

Yes.   I shudder to imagine what would have happened if Trump had done what he promised  and taken his army to the capital, leading them from a white horse.     His followers would have run out of zip ties if they kept all prisoners alive.    Fortunately he thought he could be a REMF and still claim the glory of their success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

If one's society uses the death penalty as a punishment for heinous crimes, then you're participating in it just by being a citizen here.

Yes, in the same sense that abolitiionists were participating in slavery.

To the topic question, the nincomcoup was serious enough to make me agree with Rep Massie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a treasonous, seditious attempt to undermine democracy and install a non-elected authoritarian leader. Of this there is no arguement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Had Trump had the balls wasn't colossally stupid, I think this might have gone a different way.

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Yes, in the same sense that abolitiionists were participating in slavery.

To the topic question, the nincomcoup was serious enough to make me agree with Rep Massie.

 

So the problem wasn't the nincomcoups but a lack of guns?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

That's over my head. All I meant was while I agree with the first option Q1 andQ2

3 and 4 are manipulative. The sort of dishonest polling you'd not expect from anyone wanting a genuine picture . Pollees are being steered to a desired outcome. I don't Appreciate that. So..I'm not doing the poll. 

3. What degree of responsibility does President Trump bear for these events?

  • He intentionally tried to delay or upset the vote by inciting the mob to violence, then called his most loyal Sneator to delay so the mob could catch Congress
  • This goes a little far
  • He did not intentionally start an armed rebellion but is like the Captain of a ship and should be considered responisible
  • This is too weak.
  • Trump did not intend his followers to get so far out of hand, and is only concerned about ensuring honest & fair elections
  • A half truth. The first half may be true, the second half ia BS
  • He has no responsibility for it, at all

Steam was one of the few voices expressing fear our democratic process was under grave threat over the last few months,    His view from red hat ground has proven accurate.   I have a similar view.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Yes, in the same sense that abolitiionists were participating in slavery.

To the topic question, the nincomcoup was serious enough to make me agree with Rep Massie.

 

The most ardent of abolitionists had the option of leaving the country, so as not to be participating in a slave-owning society. You could call them conscientious objectors, if they stayed and opposed it.

There were Congresspersons who assisted the Capitol Police in protecting the Congress, such as Troy Neihls (R-Tex) who was a sheriff... he used his training in de-escalation rather than a gun.

Did any of the Proudly Armed Caucus in Congressman actually use their weapon(s) in the mob's invasion? If they didn't, the only rational conclusion that they might as well NEVER carry them because the incursion of an armed mob intent on murdering the Vice President seems to me to be the best chance they'll ever have to prove it's not an utter delusion. Of course, one of the Proudly Armed Caucus was too busy tweeting to try and help the mob catch Speaker Pelosi, so that should count for something

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

That's over my head. All I meant was while I agree with the first option Q1 andQ2

3 and 4 are manipulative. The sort of dishonest polling you'd not expect from anyone wanting a genuine picture . Pollees are being steered to a desired outcome. I don't Appreciate that. So..I'm not doing the poll. 

....

OK. It's not required.

Polls here are IMHO for nothing more than the entertainment of participants.

47 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

......   ....

3. What degree of responsibility does President Trump bear for these events?

....   ....

  • He intentionally tried to delay or upset the vote by inciting the mob to violence, then called his most loyal Sneator to delay so the mob could catch Congress
  • This goes a little far

Are you aware that he called two Senators while the mob was breaking in, asked specifically about what was happening on the floor, and asked newly-elected Senator Tuberville to try and speak for as long as he could to delay the proceedings (this was explicit in the conversation), not understanding he'd been told it had already stopped because the Congress had evacuated?

As always, it's extraordinarily difficult to prove intentions. But it certainly fits the pattern.

Why do you think he specifically said to "not be nice" to some of the Congress and VP Pence?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

So the problem wasn't the nincomcoups but a lack of guns?

 

Rep Massie didn't lack a gun, apparently.

4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did any of the Proudly Armed Caucus in Congressman actually use their weapon(s) in the mob's invasion? If they didn't, the only rational conclusion that they might as well NEVER carry them because the incursion of an armed mob intent on murdering the Vice President seems to me to be the best chance they'll ever have to prove it's not an utter delusion.

Another rational conclusion might be that, even though armed, the prudent choice was to retreat and resolve the situation with less bloodshed instead of risk trying to confront a mob without anywhere near enough bullets to prevail.

If you were a congresscritter holed up in your office during a nincomcoup, would you rather be armed or not? If armed, would you try to kill an entire mob or just try to defend yourself and your staff if necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polytelum Tom said:

...

Another rational conclusion might be that, even though armed, the prudent choice was to retreat and resolve the situation with less bloodshed instead of risk trying to confront a mob without anywhere near enough bullets to prevail....

Then what is the point of carrying a fucking gun? Who the fuck are you going to shoot, if not armed and murderous intruders?

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

it was never going to be successful.

taking one building, even for a considerable time, does not a success make.

 

 

Nope, he could've used it as an example to implement the insurrection act and delay the inauguration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:
59 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

it was never going to be successful.

taking one building, even for a considerable time, does not a success make.

 

 

Nope, he could've used it as an example to implement the insurrection act and delay the inauguration.

Taking one building and all the people in it could work to some extent. Especially if you have the next two in line for the throne there. Killing all the Dems and half the R's would certainly stir thing up enough for Trump's people in the Pentagon to come in with martial law.

It would work even better if the R's who weren't going to be killed were armed and willing to act with the insurgents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lark said:

Steam was one of the few voices expressing fear our democratic process was under grave threat over the last few months,    His view from red hat ground has proven accurate.   I have a similar view.    

I believe I've been referring to the Trump presidency as an existential crisis for American democracy for some time.

On 5/5/2020 at 12:35 AM, B.J. Porter said:

It's weird and crazy and there's some seriously bizarre and dangerous loyalty to this ignorant conman that presents a real danger to our democracy.

 

On 2/24/2020 at 8:29 AM, B.J. Porter said:

It's really quite the opposite. It's all about your boy Trump.

A vote for Trump  is a vote for the end of democracy as we know it and a great many other things. Do you know he was joking again about being president in 2028?

 

On 11/27/2019 at 1:34 AM, B.J. Porter said:

No.

The American experiment at democracy is at stake and people are literally dying because of Trump.

I will not lighten up.

P.S. He couldn't tell if it was a male or female dog.

 

 

I believe I also posted a rant after the election in 2016 that some of our biggest Trumpsuckers called "unhinged" on that sort of theme, but I can't easily find it. It may have been archived or something.

But my general take is once Trump got elected he'd never leave office willingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Then what is the point of carrying a fucking gun? Who the fuck are you going to shoot, if not armed and murderous intruders?

- DSK

Self defense. Armed intruders into the place to which you retreated.

Now that I've answered your questions, want to take a shot at mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
1 hour ago, Ease the sheet. said:

it was never going to be successful.

taking one building, even for a considerable time, does not a success make.

 

 

Nope, he could've used it as an example to implement the insurrection act and delay the inauguration.

If they could have captured at least some of Congress on the floor, the mob could have coerced them to "certify" Trump as President.

Haven't seen anything stating this but I believe that was their goal because it has been done several times in the past (not in US history). It would not take a genius to think of. Their secondary plan was to find and destroy the states letters alloting their Electoral College votes.

With either, Trump could raised much more of a stink about staying in office, especially with more violence and as noted, declaring and using emergency power.

 

1 minute ago, B.J. Porter said:

I believe I've been referring to the Trump presidency as an existential crisis for American democracy for some time.

....    ...

But my general take is once Trump got elected he'd never leave office willingly.

Yep. And it's astonishing what a grip he seems to have on the Republicans.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

Taking one building and all the people in it could work to some extent. Especially if you have the next two in line for the throne there. Killing all the Dems and half the R's would certainly stir thing up enough for Trump's people in the Pentagon to come in with martial law.

It would work even better if the R's who weren't going to be killed were armed and willing to act with the insurgents.

That was one fear AOC voiced in her live stream on Instagram - that she knew of white supremacist Congresspeople who she felt were a high risk to reveal her position and turn her over to the mob because they were likely working with them.

Her talk is chilling AF, since she seems to have at least laid eyes on some of the insurrectionists but still avoided them. "Very close encounter" she described, but could not name specifics for security purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

That was one fear AOC voiced in her live stream on Instagram - that she knew of white supremacist Congresspeople who she felt were a high risk to reveal her position and turn her over to the mob because they were likely working with them.

Her talk is chilling AF, since she seems to have at least laid eyes on some of the insurrectionists but still avoided them. "Very close encounter" she described, but could not name specifics for security purposes.

She may have been in the hallway that the SS guy defended by shooting the traitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

That was one fear AOC voiced in her live stream on Instagram - that she knew of white supremacist Congresspeople who she felt were a high risk to reveal her position and turn her over to the mob because they were likely working with them.

Her talk is chilling AF, since she seems to have at least laid eyes on some of the insurrectionists but still avoided them. "Very close encounter" she described, but could not name specifics for security purposes.

There is no longer an undercurrent of sedition, it's gone mainstream.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I believe I've been referring to the Trump presidency as an existential crisis for American democracy for some time.

 

 

 

I believe I also posted a rant after the election in 2016 that some of our biggest Trumpsuckers called "unhinged" on that sort of theme, but I can't easily find it. It may have been archived or something.

But my general take is once Trump got elected he'd never leave office willingly.

Fair enough,   I remember your rant.    I opposed Trump but tried to give him the benefit of the doubt until the joint intelligence report came out.   I didn’t include you because your view wasn’t based on close contact with Trump’s minions, but on distant perspective.    As I recall you hid in Oz, not southern Ohio.   Therefore you’re an argument against my point.   Edit,  the exception that makes the rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Lark said:

Fair enough,   I remember your rant.    I opposed Trump but tried to give him the benefit of the doubt until the joint intelligence report came out.   I didn’t include you because your view wasn’t based on close contact with Trump’s minions, but on distant perspective.    As I recall you hid in Oz, not southern Ohio.   Therefore you’re an argument against my point.   

Yeah, but I had plenty of loons cheering him on on my social media network, and even a couple on the docks in Brisbane...

But no, I've not been immersed in Trumplandia except for a few months in Florida over the 19/20 winter. Didn't love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

Yes.   I shudder to imagine what would have happened if Trump had done what he promised  and taken his army to the capital, leading them from a white horse.     His followers would have run out of zip ties if they kept all prisoners alive.    Fortunately he thought he could be a REMF and still claim the glory of their success.

The idea of Trump riding a white horse would have made it worthwhile. He was going to go but there was no golf cart available. If I was a Trumptard I would be finished with him. I would have finally realized that his word is worthless.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

That's over my head. All I meant was while I agree with the first option Q1 andQ2

3 and 4 are manipulative. The sort of dishonest polling you'd not expect from anyone wanting a genuine picture . Pollees are being steered to a desired outcome. I don't Appreciate that. So..I'm not doing the poll. 

3. What degree of responsibility does President Trump bear for these events?

  • He intentionally tried to delay or upset the vote by inciting the mob to violence, then called his most loyal Sneator to delay so the mob could catch Congress
  • This goes a little far
  • He did not intentionally start an armed rebellion but is like the Captain of a ship and should be considered responisible
  • This is too weak.
  • Trump did not intend his followers to get so far out of hand, and is only concerned about ensuring honest & fair elections
  • A half truth. The first half may be true, the second half ia BS
  • He has no responsibility for it, at all
The effort by the White House to get Tuberville to delay certification of the votes provides insight into the President's thinking and priorities as a mob of his supporters lay siege to the iconic building. As the President worked to convince Tuberville to delay the process, he and other top White House officials did little to check in on Vice President Mike Pence while he and members of his family were inside the breached Capitol, a source close to the vice president told CNN.
Lee picked up the phone and Trump identified himself, and it became clear he was looking for Tuberville and had been given the wrong number. Lee, keeping the President on hold, went to find his colleague and handed Tuberville his phone, telling him the President was on the line and had been trying to reach him.
Tuberville spoke with Trump for less than 10 minutes, with the President trying to convince him to make additional objections to the Electoral College vote in a futile effort to block Congress' certification of President-elect Joe Biden's win, according to a source familiar with the call. The call was cut off because senators were asked to move to a secure location.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

The idea of Trump riding a white horse would have made it worthwhile. He was going to go but there was no golf cart available. If I was a Trumptard I would be finished with him. I would have finally realized that his word is worthless.

 

If you were a Trumptard there is no end to the delusion. They still see the turkey like this, not that.

EKgNqQdXYAMhs5j.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Rep Massie didn't lack a gun, apparently.

Another rational conclusion might be that, even though armed, the prudent choice was to retreat and resolve the situation with less bloodshed instead of risk trying to confront a mob without anywhere near enough bullets to prevail.

If you were a congresscritter holed up in your office during a nincomcoup, would you rather be armed or not? If armed, would you try to kill an entire mob or just try to defend yourself and your staff if necessary?

I’ll play.   As you recall, I think the recent (last half century) interpretation of the 2A is bogus.   I’m not anti firearm.   I’d be ok with licenses and bonds, like car insurance.   I’m waiting for Congress to regulate and discipline it’s 2A militias.  I’ve owned guns and (gasp) may again,    My GF loves ‘Americana’ like big trucks, guns, etc,    She started range shooting and wants a 9 mm.  I went a couple times to familiarize myself with several makes before the coup attempt.   I’ve been toying with buying a dog balls (Ruger mark IV standard or target) so I can keep her company until spring.     My only guilt is not spending any surplus cash on a boat.     So I’m not anti gun.   I guess we prove guns aren’t always toxic masculinity,   

In the nincomcoup the only private guns were displayed in an attempt to overthrow the republic.   Any that claim their guns are to defend but left them holstered proved their lie.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

The idea of Trump riding a white horse would have made it worthwhile. He was going to go but there was no golf cart available. If I was a Trumptard I would be finished with him. I would have finally realized that his word is worthless.

 

Actually, I’d have preferred the image of him riding a black mare.    
His minions have boundless faith.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lark said:

Actually I’d have preferred the image of him riding a black mare.   

poor horse. Would need to be a Clydesdale but he's likely afraid of heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nacradriver said:

We already have a death penalty....   how is that working at deterring murders?

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

Only if I get a sword, whistle, and a baseball cap with a cool embroidered logo on it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lark said:

In the nincomcoup the only private guns were displayed in an attempt to overthrow the republic.   Any that claim their guns are to defend but left them holstered proved their lie.   

I think you might be confusing defending with attacking.

Defending would be: nincomcouper enters your office, threatening you and your staff, you shoot to defend. (Trump said Rep. Massie should be out of the TeamR Party, so he would be a target.)

Attacking, as I said to Doug, would be leaving the office to confront and shoot at a mob with no hope of having enough ammo to prevail. That would be suicidal and stupid, in addition to being an attack, but would not be defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

Only if I get a sword, whistle, and a baseball cap with a cool embroidered logo on it.  

And white gloves, a monocle, and an Austrian accent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

I think you might be confusing defending with attacking.

Defending would be: nincomcouper enters your office, threatening you and your staff, you shoot to defend. (Trump said Rep. Massie should be out of the TeamR Party, so he would be a target.)

Attacking, as I said to Doug, would be leaving the office to confront and shoot at a mob with no hope of having enough ammo to prevail. That would be suicidal and stupid, in addition to being an attack, but would not be defense.

Defending democracy and the will of the people against a rabble calling for revolution is an attack?   The sworn defenders called off and only citizens remain?    Perspective.  I agree it would be foolish, but it’s the rationale many including yourself have long given for our heavily armed society,   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:
3 hours ago, nacradriver said:

We already have a death penalty....   how is that working at deterring murders?

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

Only if I get a sword, whistle, and a baseball cap with a cool embroidered logo on it.  

Gold epaulets. Well, fake gold, but it looks very gold-y and glitters like a mo-fo

2 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And white gloves, a monocle, and an Austrian accent.

and spats

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

....

Attacking, as I said to Doug, would be leaving the office to confront and shoot at a mob with no hope of having enough ammo to prevail. That would be suicidal and stupid, in addition to being an attack, but would not be defense.

Only if you fled to your office in the first place.

Which kind of defeats the purpose of being armed to defend oneself and absolutely is a dereliction of defending the Constitution and the principle of democracy

2 minutes ago, Lark said:

Defending democracy and the will of the people against a rabble calling for revolution is an attack?   Perspective.  I agree it would be foolish, but it’s the rationale many including yourself have long given for our heavily armed society,   

What Tom is trying to paddle away from is the near certainty that if the Proudly Armed Caucus in our Congress could really use their gunz as the wish, they would have joined the mob in killing Democrats. But they were afraid that the mob might be too eager to "color outside the lines" if you'll allow the expression, and not respect the team. So they skedaddled.

Much like the militia in most battles they were used in. Retreat to a safer vantage point and let the pros do the job. Which is why we have a standing Army today (and have for ~190 years IIRC)

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lark said:

Defending democracy and the will of the people against a rabble calling for revolution is an attack?   The sworn defenders called off and only citizens remain?    Perspective.  I agree it would be foolish, but it’s the rationale many including yourself have long given for our heavily armed society,   

Specifically, attacking a violent mob with no plan nor hope of success would be a stupid attack, not just an attack. Especially stupid since events unfolded to indicate that violence was not the necessary last resort option to end the nincomcoup.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Only if you fled to your office in the first place.

Which kind of defeats the purpose of being armed to defend oneself and absolutely is a dereliction of defending the Constitution and the principle of democracy

So tactical retreat is never a viable option? Sorry, I'm still not a supporter of the whole Stand Your Ground thing and still think that if some other option is available, deadly force should not be used. But I can modify my question to appeal to SYG guys:

If you were a congresscritter inside the Capitol during a nincomcoup, would you rather be armed or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nacradriver said:

We already have a death penalty....   how is that working at deterring murders?

I agree, we should do what they did to Ceausescu... take their blood pressure, march them outside, and plug about 30 holes into them from a .30-06 at 10 yards...    Taking the blood pressure...nice touch.

So we can count on you to lead the firing squads?

.30-06? That doesn't sound correct....

More likely a 7.62mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Polytelum Tom said:

Yes, in the same sense that abolitiionists were participating in slavery.

To the topic question, the nincomcoup was serious enough to make me agree with Rep Massie.

 

At the very real risk you will dig up something I said 15 years ago, I agree.  In that position, I would want a gun.  Not to go out hunting to end the event.  Just in case the office I was in was breached, to make the point that the intruders should find an easier office.

Hit the search engine, it's spelled "benwynn", and happy hunting. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

So tactical retreat is never a viable option? Sorry, I'm still not a supporter of the whole Stand Your Ground thing and still think that if some other option is available, deadly force should not be used. But I can modify my question to appeal to SYG guys:

If you were a congresscritter inside the Capitol during a nincomcoup, would you rather be armed or not?

It wouldn't have made any difference.

That's been my point all along

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Polytelum Tom said:

So tactical retreat is never a viable option? Sorry, I'm still not a supporter of the whole Stand Your Ground thing and still think that if some other option is available, deadly force should not be used. But I can modify my question to appeal to SYG guys:

If you were a congresscritter inside the Capitol during a nincomcoup, would you rather be armed or not?

now your not a SYG guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Only if you fled to your office in the first place.

Which kind of defeats the purpose of being armed to defend oneself and absolutely is a dereliction of defending the Constitution and the principle of democracy

What Tom is trying to paddle away from is the near certainty that if the Proudly Armed Caucus in our Congress could really use their gunz as the wish, they would have joined the mob in killing Democrats. But they were afraid that the mob might be too eager to "color outside the lines" if you'll allow the expression, and not respect the team. So they skedaddled.

Much like the militia in most battles they were used in. Retreat to a safer vantage point and let the pros do the job. Which is why we have a standing Army today (and have for ~190 years IIRC)

- DSK

History backs you up,    It was rare for a militia to stand against British bayonets.  The continental army was needed.   Bunker hill was so famous because it was the confused and disorganized militias that held their ground so long, possibly because their command structure wasn’t clear and no group wanted to run before the other.   There wasn’t a leader to order withdrawal.  
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-true-story-of-the-battle-of-bunker-hill-36721984/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, benwynn said:

At the very real risk you will dig up something I said 15 years ago, I agree.  In that position, I would want a gun.  Not to go out hunting to end the event.  Just in case the office I was in was breached, to make the point that the intruders should find an easier office.

Hit the search engine, it's spelled "BenWynn", and happy hunting. 

In a mob that is just as likely to toss a molotov in thru the door once it's breached, that's not going to make a big difference. Except that you'll be able to end your misery quickly.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

At the very real risk you will dig up something I said 15 years ago, I agree.  In that position, I would want a gun.  Not to go out hunting to end the event.  Just in case the office I was in was breached, to make the point that the intruders should find an easier office.

Hit the search engine, it's spelled "benwynn", and happy hunting. 

I'd disagree, since none of them were actually in an office and were behind a line of people willing to give their lives.

In fact, it sounds like the threat to the folks like AOC weren't the rioters, it was the armed critters in the ranks. A bit like the Clone Wars when the clones turned on the Jedi.

 

(I do agree he will dig something up from long ago)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

And white gloves, a monocle, and an Austrian accent.

Oh... I am most definitely in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'd disagree, since none of them were actually in an office and were behind a line of people willing to give their lives.

One of them is dressed like a fucking buffalo and is not eating unless the jailers serve him organic food.

Just sayin'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

One of them is dressed like a fucking buffalo and is not eating unless the jailers serve him organic food.

Just sayin'. 

Sorry, meant I wouldn't need a gun in my office, as it wouldn't have done me any good. I'd have been behind a line of trained people who were willing to die for me. If the mob got through that, me killing a few more wouldn't have done anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lark said:

I’ll play.   As you recall, I think the recent (last half century) interpretation of the 2A is bogus.  

We can at least agree about this, if not on particulars. For example, I think that "militiaing" as Spatial Ed used to call it was primarily an outdoor activity and the Brady Center's idea that the second amendment applies only inside the home, so we had indoor militias, is ludicrous.

More ludicrous would be an argument that actually made it to the Supreme Court: that the second amendment, unlike any other part of the Constitution, only applies to technology in use at the time it was written. I was glad to see that one unanimously rejected.

Last but not least, the idea that the weapons most in need of banning are the ones a militia would need most is absurd, nearly as absurd as calling an ordinary .22 a weapon of war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites