Why do people want Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

Trump was certainly an improvement regarding the regime change war policy in the Middle East -- he didn't start a new one. But he also didn't get us out of the current seven wars in which we are engaged.

He also vetoed the Yemen bill, which would have ended funding Saudi Arabia's genocide in that country.

Their intent was to capture the capitol hill and force them not to make that vote. So if nobody comes to their defense, then I don't see what would stop Trump from accomplishing this.

You are finally catching on: Trump did not accomplish his goals (thus making him a loser), one of which was to overthrow the election; another was to suspend the Constitution; and still another was to engage the Left and demonize them as "The Enemy".

You still didn't answer the question. Who were to stop him from capturing the capitol if the opposition didn't show up? Don't you see how illogical this is?

And also he didn't have a goal of suspending the constitution. He only had a goal to do ONE THING that might be considered unconstitutional. But constitution would be in place outside of this one thing.

Obviously, it was his own followers and their ineptitude, the utter lack of a cohesive plan, an absent Commander-In-Chief, and a non-existent "enemy" to be blamed for all the destruction and violence.  The only thing that Trump's coup attempt accomplished was to obviate the impotence and and ineffectiveness of Trump and his followers.

No matter how weak they are, someone has to stop them in order for them not to accomplish what they wanted. So, when the vote counting got back in session that evening, what happened right before then? Who stopped those people?

I don't have any specific links, but it's not hard to find. I followed a bunch of the riots in real-time, some of them I even watched streaming. They were always peaceful protests until a bunch of white guys in trucks showed up from out-of-state (sometimes Boogaloo Boys, sometimes Proud Boys, sometimes not).
Once the violence starts, you've got hooligans from all over who see anarchy and want a piece of it.

Check out the protest in Minneapolis: everything was fine until "umbrella man" shows up out of nowhere (white guy in tactical gear, gas mask, and umbrella), casually takes a hammer to a few windows, and leaves. Everything went downhill after that.

Some people were claiming that "umbrella man" was a cop, but the man who was later caught by police turned out to be a member of the group "Aryan Cowboys".


Racists destroy property at BLM protests, people start saying "Those BLM people sure do like destroying property."

It worked, didn't it?


Using a coup to change the outcome of ONE election would have ultimately set the precedence for all elections to follow.
Although if the coup had succeeded, there's a good chance that we wouldn't have elections anymore.


If that were true, we wouldn't be protesting the fact that unarmed black people get shot by cops who walk free.


That's why they were peacefully protesting and not breaking property.

He didn't necessarily want to "capture" the Capitol, he wanted to start a war. The article in this thread explains it pretty clearly: viewtopic.php?t=402517

Why do people feel that the assault on the Capitol Building was merely an ordinary protest?

It's the Capitol that they were invading! They were conducting a vote which would make Biden the official winner of the election. These folks didn't want Biden to be the official winner. They wanted the loser to be President, instead. Sort of like a "banana republic."

I think it could easily have been a rigged election with how corrupt the United States is/was. I wiould argue that the United States probably already was a banana republic circa 2020 even before the election.

But regardless, the general public had no right, nor place, to be unlawfully storming a capitol building based on nothing but mainstream media propaganda (right-wing propaganda) & those involved with any violence should be pursued & punished. I haven't really followed anyone from that scenario, but I did see that the viking horn guy seemed to get his comeuppance.

I think the protest was fuelled by rage at a system/NWO/great reset that is basically trying to install authoritarianism in the United States. A system that is attempting to remove or at least reduce, the constitutional rights that Americans have had for a few hundred years and to also reduce the influence of Christianity & religion in general.

I realise the constitution did not officially appoint Christianity as the state religion, nor do I believe it should have.

It was definitely no ordinary protest. It was way bigger than mainstream media showed on television from obscure videos I have seen of footage from the day.

I actually heard the opposite argument that some of the BLM folk or their allies protested at the Capitol in order to blame Republicans.

It really could have been both ways. Maybe both with summer riots and with Jan 6, *some* people were genuine supporters of respective political party being violent and others were the members of the other party trying to impersonate them to tarnish their name.

In fact I have read that some of the same faces were found in both rallies. Were they truly Republican or truly Democrat? Who knows. Perhaps neither: just some people paid to cause trouble or something?

As far as "umbrella man" its the first time I hear of him. If you say he damaged just a few things and then they all damaged a bunch of stuff after he left, you can't use his actions as an excuse of what they did later. Vandalism is not an appropriate response to vandalism, especially since you say he caused just a little bit of vandalism and then the rest of them did a lot more.

Last edited by QFT on 20 Dec 2021, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

,

Those cops wouldn't have gotten the punishments they deserved with out the demonstrations. We know that because convictions of police officers for abuse and murder hardly ever happened before the public was made to wake up to it by BLM and Antifa.
Changing the outcome of the last Presidential election would probably have meant the beginning of the end of our free government, leaving the country at the mercy of a popular strongman autocracy.

What you are basically saying is that if it is a "good cause" (such as getting cops punished) then one is allowed to use violence to achieve it, but if it is a "bad cause" (such as changing outcome of the election) then it isn't. But in this case its not really about violence. It is about all those other things. And those other things pretty much make up your mind whether you think violence is acceptable to achieve them or not. Pretty much "the end justifies the means" mentality.

Well, this being the case, together with the fact that the two parties have opposite opinions on those other things, it kinda makes sense why each party views their own violence as more acceptable than the opponent's violence. But I say that both sides being dishonest by acting this way.

If the destructive DC rioters were actually BLM, how come only Trump supporters were identified and prosecuted for the capitol attack?

I don't follow the news that closely. I am only saying what I briefly read. What I read was that there were some of the same faces in the photographs. I believe they mentioned some funny faced people dressed up funny in the same exact way being in both protests or something. Why didn't they get caught? Well, they didn't catch everyone, clearly. Just a few. There were too many people to catch, wasn't there?

There is a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.....that the perpetrators of the Capitol Insurrection were members of various right-wing organizations who did not want Joseph Biden to be our next President. They wanted to find some way to overturn the official results of the election by force.