Significance of 6/1

[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.

LOLOL

There is no debate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors. Nothing. The Constitution clearly grants that authority to the 2 houses of the Congress.

There isnt a law against it. There isnt a law forcing him to do it. All he would have to do is not open them. Then what?

LOL

Moron, there is a law that says the two houses of Congress can reject electors. The law also says the VP's role is to "open the certificates." That's it. Using your inane logic, there's no law that says Pence couldn't just declare themselves the president. Using your inane logic, after the next presidential election, Kamala Harris can simply declare herself the president, since there's no law saying she can't, and she can declare the 2024 election void, since there's no law saying she can't. And she can declare the office of president is a lifetime position, since there's no law saying she can't. And she becomes a dictator, since there's no law saying she can't.

How do you come up with that mess? "using my logic" doesnt imply any of that retarded shit

 

[Crepitus]

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.

You call it an insurrection or a coup because you're a leftist.

Realist, not leftist.

You are far from a realist. You're a self loathing leftist.

You're confused.

That's ok, it's normal for tRumplings.

See there you go. Typical Transocrat. You deserve the life you have.

I have a wonderful life, and I worked hard for it. You're damn right I deserve it.

Keep telling yourself that, old man.

Lol, nice try kid.

You're so pathetic you can't even craft a decent insult.

 

[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!

No sign language necessary. Just knowledge of the rhetoric spoken at the rally. The people participating in the rally and the tactics used throughout the time Biden was known to have won.

Right? So what does "lets do this peacefully" mean in RWNJ terms?

Liar, that's a false quote. No one ever said that.

" I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
Ooops sorry faun. I didnt get the quote exactly right

An honest mistake, I'm sure. Although it is suspicious why you would take his actual quote, where he's merely confirming he's expecting the crowd to be peaceful; and falsely quoting him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. An honest mistake, anybody could have made.

You are a sad person.

 

[easyt65]

"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.

'SOUNDS' like pretty explicit instructions'?

Yeah, I guess so, if you are a TDS-suffering, irrational hate-driven trump-addicted snowflake.

I missed in your post where Trump supposedly ordered protestors / supporters to:

'Fight your way into the Capitol'
'Physically confront / engage the police.'
'Smash your way into the Capitol'
'Join the Insurrection'

Instead you posted:

'Fight Like Hell'
- Pelosi, Schumer, Maxine Waters, and more have used these exact words before. Their violent rhetoric resulted in firebombed GOP election offices, physical altercations with GOP officials / candidates, and an assassination attempt against GOP politicians in a public park. Where was your rebuke, opposition to, and call for punishment of the Democrats who did so? <crickets>

'Stop the Steal'
- GOP politicians were attempting to do so in the Capitol and Trump asked the protestors / supporters there to walk down to the capitol to CHEER them on. This is still no evidence of a call for violence. Try again.

'Go to the Capitol'
- OMG! 'GO to the Capitol'! How awful! How the hells do you get 'violently affect an Insurrection' out of 'GO to the Capitol'?!

'Sounds like some pretty explicit instructions.'
- No, it sounds like a snowflake projecting something NOT there.

 

[Faun]

No Congress critter apparatchiks were hauled off to re-education camps or firing squads.
None of the couple hundred whom occupied the one part of one building claimed they now hold the office of the representative/senator that scurried away.
None of the agencies and departments of the USA were taken over.
In essence, no coup/insurrection of reality or substance happened.
Many people may have broken laws, but the substance of the Federal government was neither challenged nor changed.

All this brouhaha over events of a few hours on a single day, Jan. 6, 2021.

HOWEVER ...
On the other hand ...
For 4-5+ months during the previous Summer of 2020, in several cities of the USA, we had "occupation" and "autonomous" zones ~CHAZ/CHAOS which in essence had declared and engaged in insurrection, claimed secession, sedition and those months also included near daily riots, vandalism, looting, arson, property damage, attacks upon Federal buildings with destruction and levels of occupation, assaults upon local police and Federal officers, assorted crimes against citizens, assaults, rapes, even a few murders, etc.

All this is on a collective scale that is thousands of times above and beyond what happened for a few hours on a single day in January.

All this was supported, if not encouraged, by the leadership of the Democratic party, both implicit and via their not speaking out in objection to or efforts to defuse and disperse the insurgents occupying portions of many major cities.

The @150 days of lawlessness and insurrection of the Summer of "Luv"-2020 is so quickly overlooked, forgotten, minimized, and swept under the rug.

This is the insult to injury we saw from the Left and the source of past and present clear danger to our Nation. Telling is that silence of those whom choose to ignore it and play sleigh of hand, mis-direction.

View attachment 505127

And this is the general reply from the leftists here demanding that Jan 6 was the worst thing ever whilst supporting the party that is openly backing a group perpetuating the most damaging riots in US history that killed dozens.

It was. The riots, as bad as they were, weren't a threat to our democracy. Whereas Insurrection Day was. Had those trumptards been successful in getting Trump, the loser of the election, installed as president, it would have been the end of the U.S.. No riots over the summer could have led to that.

I know you’re (collectively) desperate to divert attention away from Insurrection Day, but you'll never succeed because the two events are not the same.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOLOL

There is no debate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors. Nothing. The Constitution clearly grants that authority to the 2 houses of the Congress.

There isnt a law against it. There isnt a law forcing him to do it. All he would have to do is not open them. Then what?

LOL

Moron, there is a law that says the two houses of Congress can reject electors. The law also says the VP's role is to "open the certificates." That's it. Using your inane logic, there's no law that says Pence couldn't just declare themselves the president. Using your inane logic, after the next presidential election, Kamala Harris can simply declare herself the president, since there's no law saying she can't, and she can declare the 2024 election void, since there's no law saying she can't. And she can declare the office of president is a lifetime position, since there's no law saying she can't. And she becomes a dictator, since there's no law saying she can't.

How do you come up with that mess? "using my logic" doesnt imply any of that retarded shit

How could I have known you'd protest having your own logic used against you?

 

[Faun]

"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!

No sign language necessary. Just knowledge of the rhetoric spoken at the rally. The people participating in the rally and the tactics used throughout the time Biden was known to have won.

Right? So what does "lets do this peacefully" mean in RWNJ terms?

Liar, that's a false quote. No one ever said that.

" I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
Ooops sorry faun. I didnt get the quote exactly right

An honest mistake, I'm sure. Although it is suspicious why you would take his actual quote, where he's merely confirming he's expecting the crowd to be peaceful; and falsely quoting him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. An honest mistake, anybody could have made.

You are a sad person.

 

[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.

LOLOL

There is no debate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors. Nothing. The Constitution clearly grants that authority to the 2 houses of the Congress.

There isnt a law against it. There isnt a law forcing him to do it. All he would have to do is not open them. Then what?

LOL

Moron, there is a law that says the two houses of Congress can reject electors. The law also says the VP's role is to "open the certificates." That's it. Using your inane logic, there's no law that says Pence couldn't just declare themselves the president. Using your inane logic, after the next presidential election, Kamala Harris can simply declare herself the president, since there's no law saying she can't, and she can declare the 2024 election void, since there's no law saying she can't. And she can declare the office of president is a lifetime position, since there's no law saying she can't. And she becomes a dictator, since there's no law saying she can't.

How do you come up with that mess? "using my logic" doesnt imply any of that retarded shit

How could I have known you'd protest having your own logic used against you?

Thats not my logic. I am saying their isnt laws forcing pence to do the votes.
You are bringing up shit that is directly against the constitution. You are just dumb as shit.
Its ok, though. You cant help it, cultist.

 

[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!

No sign language necessary. Just knowledge of the rhetoric spoken at the rally. The people participating in the rally and the tactics used throughout the time Biden was known to have won.

Right? So what does "lets do this peacefully" mean in RWNJ terms?

Liar, that's a false quote. No one ever said that.

" I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
Ooops sorry faun. I didnt get the quote exactly right

An honest mistake, I'm sure. Although it is suspicious why you would take his actual quote, where he's merely confirming he's expecting the crowd to be peaceful; and falsely quoting him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. An honest mistake, anybody could have made.

You are a sad person.

The way you slap reason in the face is sad. All for your cult.
Its sad.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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?

Did the Germans give up after Pearl Harbor?

 

[Faun]

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.

LOLOL

There is no debate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors. Nothing. The Constitution clearly grants that authority to the 2 houses of the Congress.

There isnt a law against it. There isnt a law forcing him to do it. All he would have to do is not open them. Then what?

LOL

Moron, there is a law that says the two houses of Congress can reject electors. The law also says the VP's role is to "open the certificates." That's it. Using your inane logic, there's no law that says Pence couldn't just declare themselves the president. Using your inane logic, after the next presidential election, Kamala Harris can simply declare herself the president, since there's no law saying she can't, and she can declare the 2024 election void, since there's no law saying she can't. And she can declare the office of president is a lifetime position, since there's no law saying she can't. And she becomes a dictator, since there's no law saying she can't.

How do you come up with that mess? "using my logic" doesnt imply any of that retarded shit

How could I have known you'd protest having your own logic used against you?

Thats not my logic. I am saying their isnt laws forcing pence to do the votes.
You are bringing up shit that is directly against the constitution. You are just dumb as shit.
Its ok, though. You cant help it, cultist.

LOL

You literally claimed Pence could have unilaterally rejected electors, despite the Constitution, because there's no law against it. Well I showed you some examples of things Harris could do if she were allowed because there are no laws against those things either.

It's your logic. I wholeheartedly disagree with it, as did Pence who said it would have been unconstitutional for him to unilaterally reject electors... but it's your logic.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

Did the Germans give up after Pearl Harbor?

Eventually...

 

[colfax_m]

I am saying their isnt laws forcing pence to do the votes.

3 USC 15.

3 U.S. Code § 15 - Counting electoral votes in Congress

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Faun]

"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!

No sign language necessary. Just knowledge of the rhetoric spoken at the rally. The people participating in the rally and the tactics used throughout the time Biden was known to have won.

Right? So what does "lets do this peacefully" mean in RWNJ terms?

Liar, that's a false quote. No one ever said that.

" I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard today."
Ooops sorry faun. I didnt get the quote exactly right

An honest mistake, I'm sure. Although it is suspicious why you would take his actual quote, where he's merely confirming he's expecting the crowd to be peaceful; and falsely quoting him to tell the crowd to be peaceful. An honest mistake, anybody could have made.

You are a sad person.

The way you slap reason in the face is sad. All for your cult.
Its sad.

 

[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.

LOLOL

There is no debate. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors. Nothing. The Constitution clearly grants that authority to the 2 houses of the Congress.

There isnt a law against it. There isnt a law forcing him to do it. All he would have to do is not open them. Then what?

LOL

Moron, there is a law that says the two houses of Congress can reject electors. The law also says the VP's role is to "open the certificates." That's it. Using your inane logic, there's no law that says Pence couldn't just declare themselves the president. Using your inane logic, after the next presidential election, Kamala Harris can simply declare herself the president, since there's no law saying she can't, and she can declare the 2024 election void, since there's no law saying she can't. And she can declare the office of president is a lifetime position, since there's no law saying she can't. And she becomes a dictator, since there's no law saying she can't.

How do you come up with that mess? "using my logic" doesnt imply any of that retarded shit

How could I have known you'd protest having your own logic used against you?

Thats not my logic. I am saying their isnt laws forcing pence to do the votes.
You are bringing up shit that is directly against the constitution. You are just dumb as shit.
Its ok, though. You cant help it, cultist.

LOL

You literally claimed Pence could have unilaterally rejected electors, despite the Constitution, because there's no law against it. Well I showed you some examples of things Harris could do if she were allowed because there are no laws against those things either.

It's your logic. I wholeheartedly disagree with it, as did Pence who said it would have been unconstitutional for him to unilaterally reject electors... but it's your logic.

Where does it force him to do it?
Where does the constitution allow harris to appoint herself President? Or Pence? The Constitution lays out how one becomes president. It doesnt force the VP to read the electoral votes.
Apples and oranges. You are just too dumb to distinguish the types of fruit.
As I said, its ok.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

You call it an insurrection or a coup because you're a leftist.

Realist, not leftist.

You are far from a realist. You're a self loathing leftist.

You're confused.

That's ok, it's normal for tRumplings.

See there you go. Typical Transocrat. You deserve the life you have.

I have a wonderful life, and I worked hard for it. You're damn right I deserve it.

Keep telling yourself that, old man.

Lol, nice try kid.

You're so pathetic you can't even craft a decent insult.

You keep responding so there is that.

 

[Faun]

Where does it force him to do it?

Article. II.
Section. 1.

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

Any more stupid questions?

Where does the constitution allow harris to appoint herself President? Or Pence? The Constitution lays out how one becomes president. It doesnt force the VP to read the electoral votes.
Apples and oranges. You are just too dumb to distinguish the types of fruit.
As I said, its ok.

Like the VP being able to unilaterally reject electors, it doesn't say it. But your reasoning was it would be ok because there's no law against it. I get that it's brain-dead logic... I get you don't like hearing it because it's moronic... but it's your logic.

Faun: There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any law that grants the VP the power to unilaterally reject electors.

TNHarley: There isnt a law against it.​

 

[colfax_m]

TNHarley: There isnt a law against it.

Proceeds to ignore all the laws requiring he do if because that’s not a law “against it”.
At least that’s my prediction.

 

[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)

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.

He CAN bloviate to his hearts content, that is how freedom works. That does not make it good, correct or even effective but you can get on your soap box and proclaim whatever you want.

He was the President of the United States, so his bloviation does have meaning. Point in fact. Dozens of States are now legislating on the basis of his bloviation.

Indeed. Screw free speech - am I right?

Not all speech is protected.

That said, this goes beyond a legal right to speak. As president, he has a responsibility to do what’s right for the country and he failed that very low bar spectacularly.

Nonsense. Pure and simple nonsense. Point out one time JUST ONE - where he called for the people to storm the Capitol. Just one.

I don’t think he did, which is why he’s not criminally liable. But they stormed the Capitol on his behalf never the less and pretty much no one should be surprised about that given how he whipped them into a furor.

People who attend "Pro Wrestling" get whipped up into a frenzy as well. I have YET to see the "wrestlers" charged with anything.....

 

[Stryder50]

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.

He CAN bloviate to his hearts content, that is how freedom works. That does not make it good, correct or even effective but you can get on your soap box and proclaim whatever you want.

He was the President of the United States, so his bloviation does have meaning. Point in fact. Dozens of States are now legislating on the basis of his bloviation.

Indeed. Screw free speech - am I right?

Not all speech is protected.

That said, this goes beyond a legal right to speak. As president, he has a responsibility to do what’s right for the country and he failed that very low bar spectacularly.

Nonsense. Pure and simple nonsense. Point out one time JUST ONE - where he called for the people to storm the Capitol. Just one.

I don’t think he did, which is why he’s not criminally liable. But they stormed the Capitol on his behalf never the less and pretty much no one should be surprised about that given how he whipped them into a furor.

In that case, then the DEMOCRATIC mayor of Seattle and the DEMOCRATIC governor of Washington (state~region where I live) having done nothing to stop the five months of CHAZ/CHAOS with it's assorted riots, crimes, and insurrection are equally guilty since they condoned (sometimes encouraged), and have done little to prosecute the hundreds of AntiFa insurrectionists and criminal vandals/looters/rioters.

The lack of perspective, context, and scope of the quality, and quantity of their crimes shown by leftists never ceases to amaze me. Their thousands of times never equals up to the single one of the Right.