Significance of 6/1

[toobfreak]

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.

IDIOT. You can't even get the fricking DATE right. GO TO JAIL. DO NOT COLLECT $200.

 

[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?

You keep on blowing right past the point. The White House doesn't direct the AG to interfere. He can decide to do so.

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?

Unless you can show that Biden asked him to do that you are simply pissing in the wind.

He is the boss of the DOJ WTF are you talking about?

Oh, so now you are arguing that a leader is by definition responsible for actions his underlings do?

uuum yes. Thats how the world works.
Let me get drunk, go outside and ram a forklift into a delivery truck and see who gets in trouble. Me or the owner

Ah, unless the boss is holding a rally that becomes violent. Then it's ridiculous to state he bears any responsibility?

He isnt their boss. They are his.
You really just arent good at this. At all.

 

[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?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

 

[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.

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 fucker 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?

I don't know. What does "trial by combat mean," or for that matter "We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

In the end, it doesn't matter those who got arrested because of it almost to a man state they did what they did because they thought that that was what Trump wanted.

That's a pretty bold claim.

Mind citing your source for that?

Thanks so much...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926.7.0.pdf

'QAnon Shaman' lawyer says all Americans had a role in U.S. Capitol riot

The participant in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol nicknamed the "QAnon Shaman" for his horned headdress argued through a lawyer on Tuesday that all Americans - and disinformation - are to blame for the deadly violence.

www.reuters.com

Capitol riot defendants facing jail have regrets. Judges aren’t buying it.

 

[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.

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

You keep on blowing right past the point. The White House doesn't direct the AG to interfere. He can decide to do so.

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?

Unless you can show that Biden asked him to do that you are simply pissing in the wind.

He is the boss of the DOJ WTF are you talking about?

Oh, so now you are arguing that a leader is by definition responsible for actions his underlings do?

uuum yes. Thats how the world works.
Let me get drunk, go outside and ram a forklift into a delivery truck and see who gets in trouble. Me or the owner

Ah, unless the boss is holding a rally that becomes violent. Then it's ridiculous to state he bears any responsibility?

He isnt their boss. They are his.
You really just arent good at this. At all.

Ah... being deliberately obtuse. They sure as hell considered him their boss. But if you want to play little word games so you don't have to actually engage. I won't stop you.

 

[Canon Shooter]

"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 fucker 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?

I don't know. What does "trial by combat mean," or for that matter "We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

In the end, it doesn't matter those who got arrested because of it almost to a man state they did what they did because they thought that that was what Trump wanted.

That's a pretty bold claim.

Mind citing your source for that?

Thanks so much...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926.7.0.pdf

'QAnon Shaman' lawyer says all Americans had a role in U.S. Capitol riot

The participant in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol nicknamed the "QAnon Shaman" for his horned headdress argued through a lawyer on Tuesday that all Americans - and disinformation - are to blame for the deadly violence.

www.reuters.com

Capitol riot defendants facing jail have regrets. Judges aren’t buying it.

Seriously? You're going to base your argument on the rantings of some nut-case who showed up in a horned head dress?

Okay, I'll just chalk this up as a "win" for me...

 

[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.

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 fucker 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?

I don't know. What does "trial by combat mean," or for that matter "We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."

In the end, it doesn't matter those who got arrested because of it almost to a man state they did what they did because they thought that that was what Trump wanted.

That's a pretty bold claim.

Mind citing your source for that?

Thanks so much...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926/gov.uscourts.ksd.134926.7.0.pdf

'QAnon Shaman' lawyer says all Americans had a role in U.S. Capitol riot

The participant in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol nicknamed the "QAnon Shaman" for his horned headdress argued through a lawyer on Tuesday that all Americans - and disinformation - are to blame for the deadly violence.

www.reuters.com

Capitol riot defendants facing jail have regrets. Judges aren’t buying it.

Seriously? You're going to base your argument on the rantings of some nut-case who showed up in a horned head dress?

Okay, I'll just chalk this up as a "win" for me...

Actually, I'm basing it on William Chrestman, Jacob Shansley our Shaman friend, and apparently, several others who make that claim. To a man is probably overstated at least a portion of them sure as hell not.

 

[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?

You keep on blowing right past the point. The White House doesn't direct the AG to interfere. He can decide to do so.

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?

Unless you can show that Biden asked him to do that you are simply pissing in the wind.

He is the boss of the DOJ WTF are you talking about?

Oh, so now you are arguing that a leader is by definition responsible for actions his underlings do?

uuum yes. Thats how the world works.
Let me get drunk, go outside and ram a forklift into a delivery truck and see who gets in trouble. Me or the owner

Ah, unless the boss is holding a rally that becomes violent. Then it's ridiculous to state he bears any responsibility?

He isnt their boss. They are his.
You really just arent good at this. At all.

Ah... being deliberately obtuse. They sure as hell considered him their boss. But if you want to play little word games so you don't have to actually engage. I won't stop you.

Its REALITY. Sorry foreigner. Im not like you other leftist loony toons. I deal with reality.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Fuck your bullshit premise.

 

[colfax_m]

Its REALITY. Sorry foreigner. Im not like you other leftist loony toons. I deal with reality.

Reality is, let’s say, flexible. You seems always willing to give someone like Trump every benefit of the doubt.

 

[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.

Fuck your bullshit premise.

Very eloquent.

 

[TNHarley]

Its REALITY. Sorry foreigner. Im not like you other leftist loony toons. I deal with reality.

Reality is, let’s say, flexible. You seems always willing to give someone like Trump every benefit of the doubt.

Where did i "give him the benefit of the doubt", cultist?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

You keep on blowing right past the point. The White House doesn't direct the AG to interfere. He can decide to do so.

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?

Unless you can show that Biden asked him to do that you are simply pissing in the wind.

He is the boss of the DOJ WTF are you talking about?

Oh, so now you are arguing that a leader is by definition responsible for actions his underlings do?

uuum yes. Thats how the world works.
Let me get drunk, go outside and ram a forklift into a delivery truck and see who gets in trouble. Me or the owner

Ah, unless the boss is holding a rally that becomes violent. Then it's ridiculous to state he bears any responsibility?

He isnt their boss. They are his.
You really just arent good at this. At all.

Ah... being deliberately obtuse. They sure as hell considered him their boss. But if you want to play little word games so you don't have to actually engage. I won't stop you.

I don't know what country you're from, but in America, the politicians are supposed to work for us, not the other way around.

On the other hand, the head of the federal executive branch is the President of the United States of America. He is literally the boss of the United States Attorney General, Merrick Garland.

There's nothing trivial or obtuse about the very important distinction you love to ignore.

Now take your fucking piece of shit thread and shove it up your ass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Fuck your bullshit premise.

Very eloquent.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[marvin martian]

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.

The DemoKKKrats and the corporate media spent nearly five years screeching that Trump "stole" the 2016 election from Hillary.

 

[colfax_m]

Its REALITY. Sorry foreigner. Im not like you other leftist loony toons. I deal with reality.

Reality is, let’s say, flexible. You seems always willing to give someone like Trump every benefit of the doubt.

Where did i "give him the benefit of the doubt", cultist?

Where don’t you? His call with Raffensperger was just a little request to look into stuff.

Right…

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

You know that Al Gore retracted that concession, right?

He conceded and then said he wasn't conceding. You must've missed that one.

 

[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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 you not hear what Biden said?