Significance of 6/1

[InspectorDetector]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

I don’t think the Pence ordeal is debatable. There’s zero legal rationale for it.

What he was telling Raffensperger to do also wasn’t legal. You can’t just throw out votes because you feel like it.

I think it is. Thats why legal scholars all over the country were torn about it.
Context matters. You cant pick one sentence out of a conversation and run with it.

I have noticed that it seems to be his SOP............

 

[forkup]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

If I recall correctly - Trump never once said go and start a coup to the thousands that had gathered at his speech.

He DID however called on the audience to "march to the Capitol and protest this stolen election, let your voice be heard".

So, in my opinion your "poll" is screwed from the beginning. Just my $.02.........

This election was the beginning of the end of "fair" elections in this country. It has finally come to a head. And Jesus wept...........

You did see that whatever happened on 6/1/21 is kind of besides the premise of my OP? I have more trouble with what Trump did in general after he was declared to have lost. That's what my poll is about.

 

[forkup]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

What you cherry-picked and posted does nothing to take away from the fact that he initially demanded a re-vote and suggested not allowing military members and other Americans abroad to participate.....

Sure and then the courts said no, and he accepted that ruling.

Yes, but after demanding 'every vote must count' Gore was willing to f* military members abroad in a second if it meant he could win. If it were not for the courts, if Gore would have had his way, he would have f*ed the military and gone for the win.

So what? He accepted the ruling. What's so hard for you to understand about that? You can wave the flag as much as you want, the fact of the matter remains is that Gore issued a particular court challenge. He lost that particular court challenge after which he simply conceded. Trump STILL hasn't done so. Even more, he is still insisting the election was rigged without providing any evidence.

 

[InspectorDetector]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

If I recall correctly - Trump never once said go and start a coup to the thousands that had gathered at his speech.

He DID however called on the audience to "march to the Capitol and protest this stolen election, let your voice be heard".

So, in my opinion your "poll" is screwed from the beginning. Just my $.02.........

This election was the beginning of the end of "fair" elections in this country. It has finally come to a head. And Jesus wept...........

You did see that whatever happened on 6/1/21 is kind of besides the premise of my OP? I have more trouble with what Trump did in general after he was declared to have lost. That's what my poll is about.

So you are basically saying that a loser of an election doesn't have a right to dispute the "results" of an election that he feels was fraudulent? Hmmm...interesting.

I will anxiously await your poll when a fascist democrat calls an election "unfair" - should that happen *(it won't because Republicans are too damned stupid to rig elections as the fascists have)

 

[Flash]

I think January 6th should be a National Holiday. Call it Patriot's Day.

 

[easyt65]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

Your post reminds me that people have extremely short memories.

President Trump was not the 1st.

Years ago in Florida Al Gore suggested having an immediate re-vote in Florida that included denying military members abroad the right / ability to vote.

Al Gore screamed, 'EVERY vote must count' while demanding a new Florida vote be conducted. When he was informed there was no way such a vote could be achieved in a timely manner due to the inability to get new ballots out to military members serving abroad and their absentee ballot votes back in a timely manner, Gore declared the military votes should just be ignored / left out then.

Gore was willing to deny American citizens the right to vote in a new election in order to defeat Bush & win the WH.

Despite a court order prohibiting a hand-recount, Democrats violated court orders and continued the hand count.....which eventually showed Bush won Florida, btw.

President Trump proclaimed there was election fraud - which was proven to be the case (Pa) and asked citizens to walk to the Capitol and support GOP politicians who were making a case for not certifying the election until audits / an investigation could be carried out. His, however, was not the 1st to challenge an election outcome.

This is Gore conceding right?

As to the rest. Listen to what he says at about 1'30. He lost his court challenge and he conceded. Trump lost nearly ALL his court cases and instead of conceding he still insists he won the election. If you don't see the actual difference here I can't help you.

What you cherry-picked and posted does nothing to take away from the fact that he initially demanded a re-vote and suggested not allowing military members and other Americans abroad to participate.....

Sure and then the courts said no, and he accepted that ruling.

Yes, but after demanding 'every vote must count' Gore was willing to f* military members abroad in a second if it meant he could win. If it were not for the courts, if Gore would have had his way, he would have f*ed the military and gone for the win.

So what?

The Democrat Party's Pick for President wanted to F* US citizens out of their right to vote for personal political gain.

'Nuff said. If that is ok with you, you're as crooked and treasonous as he was / is.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.

By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.

 

[forkup]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

If I recall correctly - Trump never once said go and start a coup to the thousands that had gathered at his speech.

He DID however called on the audience to "march to the Capitol and protest this stolen election, let your voice be heard".

So, in my opinion your "poll" is screwed from the beginning. Just my $.02.........

This election was the beginning of the end of "fair" elections in this country. It has finally come to a head. And Jesus wept...........

You did see that whatever happened on 6/1/21 is kind of besides the premise of my OP? I have more trouble with what Trump did in general after he was declared to have lost. That's what my poll is about.

So you are basically saying that a loser of an election doesn't have a right to dispute the "results" of an election that he feels was fraudulent? Hmmm...interesting.

I will anxiously await your poll when a fascist democrat calls an election "unfair" - should that happen *(it won't because Republicans are too damned stupid to rig elections as the fascists have)

If you lose the election. Can you try to get people to ignore the result, even when losing in court?​

See that last bit of the sentence?

You can dispute the results to your heart's content. You do this by filing complaints to the courts. You do not do it by trying to prevent the certification of the results, you do not do it by trying to get the DOJ to intervene on your behalf. You do not do it by trying to elect alternate electors. You do not do it by trying to get a Secretary of State to a state to intervene. And you do not do it by breaking into the Capitol.

 

[TNHarley]

"Fight Like Hell"

"Stop the Steal"

"Go to the Capitol"

Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.

At least a majority in both the House & Senate thought so.

Not surprising a cultist forgets "lets do this peacefully"

 

[colfax_m]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.

By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.

Depends.

 

[theHawk]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

This is why we call it an insurrection or coup.

tRump and his loyal tRumplings tried to circumvent our democracy and install a dictator. Everyone who participated belongs in jail. From tRump to his supporters in congress to the RWNJ media that spread the conspiracy theories to the lowliest bottle throwing capitol rioter. And I'm not forgetting that Facebook and others refused to do anything about this incitement to violence until it was too late either. Nail them all to the wall.

How could they “install a dictator” without F-15s and nuclear bombs?

 

[Hum Dinger]

"Fight Like Hell"

"Stop the Steal"

"Go to the Capitol"

Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.

At least a majority in both the House & Senate thought so.

Not surprising a cultist forgets "lets do this peacefully"

Yes, apparently Trump's cult supporters ignored that comment...which seems to be what Trump intended them to do.

 

[Hum Dinger]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

This is why we call it an insurrection or coup.

tRump and his loyal tRumplings tried to circumvent our democracy and install a dictator. Everyone who participated belongs in jail. From tRump to his supporters in congress to the RWNJ media that spread the conspiracy theories to the lowliest bottle throwing capitol rioter. And I'm not forgetting that Facebook and others refused to do anything about this incitement to violence until it was too late either. Nail them all to the wall.

How could they “install a dictator” without F-15s and nuclear bombs?

Did the Nazis have F-15s and Nuclear bombs when Hilter took power?

 

[forkup]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.

By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.

Not usually. And when they do it's not because the White House wants them to interfere in election disputes. You do not use the DOJ to solve election disputes that is a clear abuse of power. In this case no different than those "Stalinist tactics" you were discussing. That is the point.

As to your legality bit. Either you believe that the only limitation to what a president can do to prevent his successor from taking power is whatever he can get away with on "questionable legality". Or you recognize that that standard leaves all kinds of abuses open.

 

[forkup]

"Fight Like Hell"

"Stop the Steal"

"Go to the Capitol"

Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.

At least a majority in both the House & Senate thought so.

Not surprising a cultist forgets "lets do this peacefully"

How about not doing it at all?

By the by, I love this narrative that Trump isn't responsible at all for the violence that occurred. On his behalf, for a cause he specifically championed, that happened after a rally he spoke at, at the place he told those rally-goers to go. Just because he said a single sentence at that rally.

It's kind of like a shop owner claiming he isn't responsible for his store burning down after he hired a known pyromaniac. To which he said that he could use the insurance money. Simply because he said during the job interview that he wouldn't like his shop burning down.

Some things are so clearly predictable that claiming you couldn't know something wouldn't happen simply becomes ridiculous.

 

[Faun]

I've seen a lot of people on this board, including me putting their 2 cents in on what happened on 6/1. A few days ago I came to a bit of a weird realization for myself.

I came to realise that by focusing on the very visible, spectacular and tragic events, the true meaning of what occured has been missed.

In my opinion it's not all that important if 6/1 was a coup, insurgency, riot, demonstration or picnic. In fact 6/1 is not the most important thing that should be remembered.

What should be remembered is the precedent set by Trump. For the first time in the history of the US, the losing candidate of a presidential campaign didn't just fail to concede he lost, but actively tried to get those of his party to ignore those results and try to get power that way.

He tried to get the Georgia Secretary of State to "find him votes". He tried state assemblies to designate electors with the express purpose of getting them to elect him and not the winner of the certified election results. He tried to get his own VP to refuse to certify the results and tried to get the house and senate to do the same.

This bears repeating. Trump tried in almost every way to get him and not the winner of the election to take power.

II know that many of you believe the election was fraudulent. I obviously don't agree. I want you to realise though that if you support the precedent that as long as you claim the election was fraudulent the loser of an election can take steps to ignore those results other than actually making your case in court, the US will no longer be a functioning Democracy.

8 months since the election and Trump is still trying. You're right in that this is historic.

Trump will be remembered in infamy.

 

[TNHarley]

Meh. He tried to challenge the election through legal means. Went a little overboard with the Pence ordeal but he is a complete moron. So that is to be expected.
People try to make mountains out of mole hills. Happens all the time.

I think the things he was asking other people to do often weren’t legal.

Like what he asked of Pence.

I think it is a big deal. Not death if the nation big but bad enough that we are noticeably worse off because of it.

I think the Pence ordeal is debatable. But the rest was perfectly legal.

The Georgia District attorney's office seems to disagree. Prosecutors in Georgia open criminal investigation into Trump's attempt to influence election results

By the way, are you saying that legality is the only determination of how the loser of an election should act?

The reason I ask is that this would make a whole lot of actions by the sitting president who has tremendous power acceptable. Declaring martial law, getting the DOJ to declare the opposing party a terrorist organization, etc., etc.

Legality can be stretched REALLY far when it comes to the president especially if congress isn't interested in holding him accountable.

So you think all this would be acceptable providing you can furnish some dubious legality?

Asking the courts to look over fraud claims, ask pence not to validate votes etc isnt comparable to the stalinist tactics you listed. Be real dude. Damn.
This is why I say to use CONTEXT
Trump: OK, whatever, it's a disaster. It's a disaster. Look. Here's the problem. We can go through signature verification and we'll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it. And the only way you can do it, as you know, is to go to the past. But you didn't do that in Cobb County. You just looked at one page compared to another. The only way you can do a signature verification is go from the one that signed it on November whatever. Recently. And compare it to two years ago, four years ago, six years ago, you know, or even one. And you'll find that you have many different signatures. But in Fulton, where they dumped ballots, you will find that you have many that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries.

OK, you know that. You know that. You have no doubt about that. And you will find you will be at 11,779 within minutes, because Fulton County is totally corrupt and so is she, totally corrupt.
And they're going around playing you and laughing at you behind your back, Brad, whether you know it or not, they're laughing at you and you've taken a state that's a Republican state, and you've made it almost impossible for a Republican to win because of cheating, because they cheated like nobody's ever cheated before. And I don't care how long it takes me, you know, we're going to have other states coming forward — pretty good.

But I won't ... this is never ... this is ... We have some incredible talent said they've never seen anything ... Now the problem is they need more time for the big numbers. But they're very substantial numbers. But I think you're going to find that they — by the way, a little information, I think you're going to find that they are shredding ballots because they have to get rid of the ballots because the ballots are unsigned. The ballots are corrupt, and they're brand new and they don't have a seal and there's the whole thing with the ballots. But the ballots are corrupt.

And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal, that's a criminal offense. And you can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that's a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I've heard. And they are removing machinery and they're moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can't let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I'm notifying you that you're letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

Ah, "Stalinist tactics"? You don't think asking Pence to refuse his role in the peaceful transition of power is "Stalinist"?
You don't think alternate electors is "Stalinist tactics"?
You don't think pressuring the DOJ to file a complaint to overturn the election is "Stalinist"? https://oversight.house.gov/sites/d.../COR-SelectedDOJDocuments-2021-6-15-FINAL.pdf pages 88,89,157,158

You keep on talking about context, but the context has and is always the same thing. Bringing to bear every and all tactic in order to prevent the LEGITIMATELY elected president from taking power. What tactic do you consider legitimate to do that?

I stated the pence ordeal was questionable.
He was filing a complaint because the states went against their constitutions and changed election law. WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thats actually one of the jobs of the federal govt(to keep states in check), and you, a HUGE statist, thinks that is bad?
Damn man.. Just damn.

If a presidential candidate wants to question the constitutionality of a particular policy he needs to do that in HIS name. He should NOT pressure the DOJ to do so. The DOJ is not a vehicle for a political campaign.

By the way "questionable"? What does that even mean? Questionable is what you say when a fat girl wants to wear a dress with horizontal stripes. It's not what you say when someone is trying to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Its not the DOJs job to investigate unconstitutional actions of states?
Yes, questionable. As in, the legality is debatable.

Not usually. And when they do it's not because the White House wants them to interfere in election disputes. You do not use the DOJ to solve election disputes that is a clear abuse of power. In this case no different than those "Stalinist tactics" you were discussing. That is the point.

As to your legality bit. Either you believe that the only limitation to what a president can do to prevent his successor from taking power is whatever he can get away with on "questionable legality". Or you recognize that that standard leaves all kinds of abuses open.

Tell Biden that after his AG decided to help out with Arizonas audit
Guess he doesnt want a functioning democracy either ey?

 

[TNHarley]

"Fight Like Hell"

"Stop the Steal"

"Go to the Capitol"

Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.

At least a majority in both the House & Senate thought so.

Not surprising a cultist forgets "lets do this peacefully"

How about not doing it at all?

By the by, I love this narrative that Trump isn't responsible at all for the violence that occurred. On his behalf, for a cause he specifically championed, that happened after a rally he spoke at, at the place he told those rally-goers to go. Just because he said a single sentence at that rally.

It's kind of like a shop owner claiming he isn't responsible for his store burning down after he hired a known pyromaniac. To which he said that he could use the insurance money. Simply because he said during the job interview that he wouldn't like his shop burning down.

Some things are so clearly predictable that claiming you couldn't know something wouldn't happen simply becomes ridiculous.

He told them to protest peacefully. Maybe he was using sign language only white supremacists know and he secretly told them to "burn that mother ****** down"
IM WITH YOU MAN!

 

[Faun]

What happened on June 1st?

Does it have anything to do with what happened during the elections? I'm not all that interested in whataboutisms. Please answer the premise or don't respond at all. Thank you.

Well, since you've gotten mildly snooty with me, permit me to set you straight on a couple of points.

First, don't tell me what to do. You're just not that guy.

Second, I didn't offer any "whataboutisms", so it's stupid for you to even bring it up.

Lastly, here in the States, when we express a date with only numbers, generally speaking the month comes first, then the date, then the year.

Kinda like this; June 1 of this year would be expressed as "6/1/21" or "6/1/2021".

Now, I don't know where in the world you are, but understand that this forum is predominantly American. So, when you go writing "What happened on 6/1?", people are going to start looking at June on their calendar.

You may go now...

Must be you, I knew what date he meant. No calendar needed.

 

[blackhawk]

As far as I know nothing major happened on 6-1-21. On 1-6-21 there was protest during which some of them rioted and stormed the Capital for a few hours and it was locked down law enforcement restored order and have been investigating it since then people have been arrested charged and will get there day in court. There have been no similar incidents since then on the local, state, or federal level what the partisan hacks on all sides want to pretend happened is irrelevant.