Jan 6th Hearings

Post Reply New Topic

So that is definitely what he is going to be indicted for?

One of the things he'll be indicted for.

Is that officially on record, or are you making a prediction?

It's certainly something he's being investigated for. If the feds don't put him on trial for it, then the state of Georgia probably will in either case.

There are many ways to distinguish the two.

The 2017 protests weren't violent outside of a few very small pockets which had nothing to do with the election and more to do with people taking advantage of any unrest to carry out their own, private agenda. Scores of my personal acquaintances attended the protests, knitting pink caps with ears and making jokes about leaving the US and annexing to Canada. So, so scary (irony intended). People are allowed to protest. I don't have a problem with people choosing to protest when upset.

In 2021 they literally tried to interfere with the mechanics of government. They threatened and caused actual violence. They made actual plans (even if unsuccessfully executed) for destroying our government from within.

In 2017, the popular vote went one way while the electoral vote went the other. We know it can happen in our system, but it always runs in one direction and its frustrating. Nonetheless, the left conceded results, but lobbied to resist policy.

In 2021, both the popular vote and the electoral vote went the same way.

And as much as the right liked to complain about the tears and protests back in 2017, the things that happened are pretty much exactly what the left feared would happen. The SCOTUS was basically stolen, the rights of women severely restricted, and the president tried to turn autocrat and overturn an election. What the left didn't do was go out and "fix" elections at the state level to make it harder for the other party to win in the future, or file dozens of court cases, nor refuse to concede. What the left DID do was go out and register new and legal voters, and try to share their message.

In a peaceful and Democratic nation, some methods of trying to secure one's agenda are more appropriate than others.

So the 2017 riots were more appropriate.

Instead of posting unanswerable trick questions or gainsaying what others post, why not take advantage of the many links posted?

More relevant comparisons are hypothetical ones. What would the violence level have been if Trump won in 2020? What will the violence level be if Trump(or any Republican) wins in 2024?

Because to me that's like asking someone what they think about something, and being handed a book. That's not the way to communicate in my opinion. Can you imagine a debate where they keep handing pamphlets to each other? As for trick questions, I'm trying to ascertain what's fact from what's guesswork regarding statements being made.

Anybody with any amount of common sense would deduce that Trump, at the very least, was seeking to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. It is quite likely, had he won in 2020, that he would have sought another, third term---a waiver to the constitutional amendment limiting him to two consecutive terms of office.

He attempted many things which point to his desire for an autocratic government, with himself as head.

To me it's not so much measuring which side does it worse, as just acknowledging both sides behave really badly when the vote doesn't go their way. Its become a sad trend.

Hillary Clinton did not mount a serious challenge to Trump's Electoral College victory (he lost the popular vote----but only an Electoral College victory counts).

She didn't conduct a Watergate-style operation, complete with coverups.

Trump was a businessman with zero political experience trying to handle things the way it's done in the business world. Which obviously doesn't translate too well in the political world. I think in someways there's an advantage to having a businessman as president because he'll likely bypass political crap and get the job done. The downside of course is having no experience in how to do anything politically. To me Trump was just being Trump. I'm sure he viewed it as like a hostile business takeover or whatever, rather than trying to mastermind a political coup.

There's probably an element of that....but there's also a strong element of a person allowing power to get to his head.

Oh yeah, totally.. except for the fact that he knew this was not a business and was a country & the government of the USA. To excuse his criminal behaviour because he was just "businessing," is laughable. Orange former guy Knows he was criming on a coup level w/ an objective of installing himself as a fascist dictator. He may very well be delusional in the sense that he believed he could pull it off and his loyalists & supporters were great enough in number to enable it, but he still knew exactly what he was doing And that it wasn't a hostile takeover of some firm on the stock market.

"I thought I was businessing," would be hilarious to hear as his criminal defense in court.

That's why in the long run it's a bad idea to make a power player businessman the most powerful man in the world.