8 ms·

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. You don’t want all these people to feel like they don’t have a voice. Trump, for better or worse, was the voice of half

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. You don’t want all these people to feel like they don’t have a voice. Trump, for better or worse, was the voice of half the country. Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. Worse, they’re feeling as if they’re being persecuted. IMO they should let him have Twitter back. If need be, have them approve his tweets pre viewing. This would lower tensions. It won’t fix the underlying issues, but you want the leader to empathize then disarm. I also have to say, I haven’t seen where this is being planned. Facebook, Twitter... parler (lol)? I’d like to see evidence of it, not trust the FBI here.

asiando 6y ago
I don’t know what to think. Per-tweet moderation would be seen as censorship just as well, and would be a pretty interesting exception on Twitter. But also I don’t blame Twitter for finally putting an end to the misery he caused. I blame them for not doing it sooner, if anything.
cauthon 6y ago
They have a voice. They have a congressional representative, two senators, and a vote in the presidential election. What they do not have, and will never have in the USA, is the right to overturn an election they lost with violent force.
- Nuzzerino 6y ago
  Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?
    - Nuzzerino 6y ago
      I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
      - unethical_ban 6y ago
        "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
      - ahiknsr 6y ago
        > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
        Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
        pbourke 6y ago
        So that’s a no?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
  - brazzy 6y ago
    Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.
  - standardUser 6y ago
    Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.
  - walshemj 6y ago
    Exactly what merit would this be based on?
  - croon 6y ago
    The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  You're not wrong, but you're missing the point. So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship. From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Their perspective is the result of people lying to them for personal power and profit for years. Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.
    - Judgmentality 6y ago
      I wasn't blaming anybody for anything. I'm trying to provide some perspective to help understand the problem, instead of immediately cast blame. Honestly, your knee-jerk reaction is part of the problem.
      - majormajor 6y ago
        Why do you think it's a knee-jerk reaction? This has been happening for decades and I've been worried about it for decades... and I'm worried I wasn't pessimistic enough. Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?
        Judgmentality 6y ago
        It's a knee-jerk reaction because my comment said nothing about blame, and your response was entirely about who to blame.
        majormajor 6y ago
        Ah, I see, I view it as on-topic for the thread, though, since the thread-starting post from 'lettergram put blame on Twitter, etc, for the feelings of these potential protestors.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  BLM had all these same things, why wasn't that enough for them?
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    Ah, another hot take that a summer of protests, mostly peaceful and at times violent, happening across the country against a history of government agents killing and abusing (mostly) minorities, is the same as a group of conspiracy theorists rallying together at the behest of the lame-duck president to invade the capitol building during a session of Congress to certify the results of a fair election. If we're whatabouting, the capitol-invaders got off mostly scot-free in the moment, compared to hundreds of more-peaceful protesters who were maced, beaten and detained by cops for much less. https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrection-to-black-lives-matter-protests https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrectio... https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/ https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.
      - unethical_ban 6y ago
        Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.
- ordinaryradical 6y ago
  They also have a majority in the Supreme Court. It’s such an idiotic argument because it’s obvious they have a voice and significant representation at the state and federal level. 75 million of them voted their congresspeople in and now because they lost the presidency we have to tiptoe around their feelings while they foment an insurrection? What?
  - mod 6y ago
    Part of the threat to them was the potential loss of the court, as well, with the "pack the court" talk. /r/politics, prior to the election, was in a fervor about how this might be the last "true election" of their lifetime. That they would forever lose their voice, etc. Have their rights stripped. It's not so wild that the people on the other side would feel the same way, especially when the talk was literally about taking away the ability for Republicans to control any branches and "making sure this can never happen again." Besides packing the court, other ideas to accomplish that included redistricting, mandatory voting, and adding some left-leaning territories as states.
    - ordinaryradical 6y ago
      The r/politics crowd spouting that crap are also fools, just a left wing variant. The extremes have to convince you “everything lies in the balance” to get you to go along with their kookery. We should indulge neither end of the spectrum with foolish talk or justifications of their outlandish theories and feelings of (unjustified) grievance and fear.
    - bilbo0s 6y ago
      Are any of those things unconstitutional? If so, take it to court. If not, then suck it up. I'm tired of apologizing for my country to every group with a grievance and a camera. Especially when they all invariably claim to be loyal citizens and patriots. Now along comes an aggrieved group that wants even more than my apology, they want me to give up my constitutional order. How 'bout NO. That attack at the Capitol has put me over the top. You want change? Vote like everyone else and accept the outcome. It's time to stop coddling these people.
pbourke 6y ago
> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. Uh, what? Trump lost according to the rules of the Electoral College and lost the popular vote by millions. This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era?
- majormajor 6y ago
  > This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era? Twitter, FB, Fox, OAN, etc, have been helping the President spread lies about not actually losing for months (going back to before the election itself). If people believe that, then this is the logical result. It's astonishing how many people think the more dangerous thing is that the social media companies are rethinking their hands-off approach... The really dangerous thing is the people fanning the flames for profit and disclaiming responsibility for their actions under the guise of "free speech." "I didn't destroy the country, I just told other people to..."
obmelvin 6y ago
Trump's voice has hardly been taken from him. He has chosen to be less public in recent months/weeks. Presidents have communicated via TV and radio for much longer than they have via Twitter.
- InitialLastName 6y ago
  This ^. Trump can post anything he likes on the White House website. He is one of a very small number of people in the country that if he said "I want to address the nation", it would be on every single network and multiple streaming websites. None of the president's normal communication outlets have been curtailed. All that's happened is that some companies have decided to stop blindly quoting him.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> feel like they don’t have a voice Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That will prohibit him from holding public office in the future, so they won't even be able to hope for a do-over in '24. I doubt that will do much to calm them.
- danhak 6y ago
  > Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That’s not how that works. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote, which is vanishingly unlikely even with Democratic control.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    The first impeachment attempt seemed to have a reasonable chance on paper - but quickly fell apart because Democrats demanded running up the list of charges such that the entire process became a farce. Unless Democrats can really stick to one well aimed narrow charge, this one will likely fall apart too. They only need to include one ridiculous charge to have Republicans nope out.
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      There were only two articles of impeachment. How was that "running up the list of charges"
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case. Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.
dragontamer 6y ago
> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. That's the phrase used by DC Residents. Which has just been demonstrated: 1. The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot. The DC National Guard report to the President (EDIT: and the President took 3-hours 10 minutes before the DC National Guard responded to the break-in. From 2:30 to 5:40, the DC National Guard waited. So needless to say, DC Residents aren't exactly feeling safe about the President's ability to protect them) 2. The DC Residents, where the riot took place, have no Representative nor a Senator to represent them. 3. DC Residents pay taxes, just like everyone else in this country. But without a substantial Representative nor a Senator to carry their voice (on such important issues like: maybe the Mayor should have been in charge of the police forces on 1/6th, instead of Trump). -------- I presume that those who lost the election still have a Representative, a Governor who controls their own military (a local National Guard and/or militia of some kind), two Senators and more. DC Residents on the other hand: show the true "taxation without representation". What it actually feels like to not have power over your own city.
- starik36 6y ago
  > The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot. My understanding is that the Mayor specifically asked other law enforcement agencies to stay away. Draw your own conspiracies from this. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-07/dc-riots-capitol-police-reject-federal-help https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-07/dc-riots-c...
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    The DC Mayor does NOT control the Capitol Police. I know its a confusing situation. But your story has nothing to do with the DC Mayor. EDIT: For yall who are downvoting me. The Mayor controls the DC Metropolitan Police Department. A COMPLETELY different set of officers than the Capitol Police. Furthermore, the DC Mayor has no access to a National Guard militia for backup, and relies upon the President for that. That's just the facts in this matter.
    - starik36 6y ago
unethical_ban 6y ago
There is an ounce of truth and a pound of trash in this. I'll explain. Truth: In theory, peoples' grievances need to be heard. Trump did not get elected simply because he is a loudmouth contrarian criminal xenophobe. He also got elected over concerns for American manufacturing, a counterbalance to extreme-leftist social changes, the hope for real infrastructure investment, etc. However, in 2020, the idea of not being heard is pretty crap. "Being heard" doesn't mean "do everything you ask all the time". Trump has spread constant, factual lies, and as the President, incited violence at the Capitol. The people marching currently, the pretext of which is to argue that the free and fair election of Biden is illegitimate because it isn't who they want, is garbage. That grievance does not warrant any more attention than it has been given; that there is no evidence of systemic fraud at any level, and that this is a well-vetted assertion. Finally, while "primary sources" are nice to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense.
- lettergram 6y ago
  While I largely disagree, it’s a fair opinion. However, to your last point: > to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense. No one had firearms at the capital, at least so far as I’m aware. Had they brought them that would be a different story. I also built a platform to monitor social networks (check my profile). I haven’t picked anything up like all 50 states protesting. A few surely, but idk not some crazy coordination or anything (honestly seems more from the left). Could be underground, but idk. The capital protest had far more going on.
  - Diederich 6y ago
    > No one had firearms at the capital I assume you mean among the rioters: are you sure? I saw video of a guy pulling up his jacket showing a handgun stuffed in his pants.
  - justforyou 6y ago
spamizbad 6y ago
Their voice, democratically, is more powerful per-vote than your typical Democratic voter due to their geographic distribution (and, in the house, gerrymandering). I can't find it now, but I saw some data that showed if the votes were split 50/50 Republicans would control the white house, 57 Senate seats, and hold a solid house majority. Democrats are able to win marginal victories because they are a big tent party that tries to build a more moderate coalition of voters, while pulling in the country's left flank. Joe Biden would be a center-right politician in most western democracies, despite being considered the "left wing" candidate in the United States. Republicans need to take fewer steps to the center to build a winning coalition. For example, there's a real chance Trump could have won with a 2nd round of COVID stimulus checks, but he was ultimately talked out such measures by conservative economic advisors (despite majority of his own supporters wanted a more robust stimulus plan for COVID) So it would have been a win-win. Unfortunately, by capitulating to a specific niche in his party it cost him popular support and ultimately the election. The sad truth is, if Trump listened to his own supporters and actually governed as a populist he would have easily won reelection and this whole mess would have been avoided. But instead, he merely communicated like a populist but chose to govern more like a crummy Jeb Bush. If you look at the bills passed by the 115th congress[1] nothing looks particularly populist or even "Trumpian". Branding vs execution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress#Enacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress#E...
rconti 6y ago
This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad. If you add up all of the races across the country, a large majority of voters got a president/senator/governor they didn't want. Most of them suck it up and move on with their lives. Some get their feelings in a bunch and can't let go. Letting this guy whine on twitter about how unfair the world is to him 24x7 sure hasn't lowered the tensions in the past 4 years. It's given us exactly what we have now.
- tzs 6y ago
  > This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad. Except in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.
justforyou 6y ago
One can not appease bad faith actors without being taken advantage of.
standardUser 6y ago
The problem is, Trump supporters obviously do have a voice, a very loud one in fact, but their dedicated media sphere constantly tells them they don't. And it will keep telling them that no matter what happens. Being the victim and fighting against the unjust, oppressive 'others' is what sustains the entire movement.

asiando 6y ago

I don’t know what to think. Per-tweet moderation would be seen as censorship just as well, and would be a pretty interesting exception on Twitter. But also I don’t blame Twitter for finally putting an end to the misery he caused. I blame them for not doing it sooner, if anything.

cauthon 6y ago

They have a voice. They have a congressional representative, two senators, and a vote in the presidential election. What they do not have, and will never have in the USA, is the right to overturn an election they lost with violent force.

Nuzzerino 6y ago
Where was their voice in court when the courts refused to hear the election case at all on its merits?
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  You don't get to sue claiming fraud, then say "Well I don't know, check on it". What are you going on about?
  - Nuzzerino 6y ago
    I've read the GA and PA lawsuits in full, and was on the conference call to hear the PA court arguments for the motion to dismiss. Your take on it is not even remotely accurate. There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. If there was nothing to hide there wouldn't be a need to censor it.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      "Uh huh" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh" I too saw (clips of) several of these lawsuits, where Trump advocates were threatened with contempt and finally admitted a complete lack of evidence for claims of fraud. I also know that elections officials across the country, from both parties, assert there is no evidence of fraud in a systemic manner or in any manner that would change the results of the election. I also know that the GOP leader of the Senate, the GOP lap-dog Attorney General, and the US intelligence community are in agreement that there is no evidence of the fraud alleged. https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ https://wannabewonk.com/wannabe-coup/ In short, the facts you linked to (ha) don't align with how the legal system works, common sense, or reality.
    - ahiknsr 6y ago
      > There was plenty of evidence, but it's apparently a thought crime to say so. Can you please share some credible evidence?
      - Nuzzerino 6y ago
        Only if your definition of "credible" doesn't coincide with the side you happen to agree with.
        pbourke 6y ago
        So that’s a no?
        Nuzzerino 6y ago
- brazzy 6y ago
  Their voice was claiming there were cases with merits. There weren't.
- standardUser 6y ago
  Dozens of judges across half a dozen states, many of whom were appointed by Republicans and some even by Donald Trump himself, looked at the cases brought by Trump and Co. and handled them as they saw professionally fit. That is the job of judges. I'm not sure what more "voice" is expected to be given.
- walshemj 6y ago
  Exactly what merit would this be based on?
- croon 6y ago
  The cases had no merit, is the many times over proven fact. Having a voice doesn't mean anything you say is cemented truth. Having a voice means you can file a suit. It is either heard or thrown out based on merit. His own appointed judges weren't part of the "deep state" when they threw the cases out.
Judgmentality 6y ago
You're not wrong, but you're missing the point. So long as those people feel that they don't have a voice, they will earnestly believe they are victims of an oppressive dictatorship. From their perspective, they're fighting for liberty the same as the Boston Tea Party did way back when.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Their perspective is the result of people lying to them for personal power and profit for years. Blame those people, not the people trying to figure out maybe-too-late how to stop their victims from burning the whole country down.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I wasn't blaming anybody for anything. I'm trying to provide some perspective to help understand the problem, instead of immediately cast blame. Honestly, your knee-jerk reaction is part of the problem.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      Why do you think it's a knee-jerk reaction? This has been happening for decades and I've been worried about it for decades... and I'm worried I wasn't pessimistic enough. Why aren't you blaming anyone for anything? Do you not think what's happening is bad?
      - Judgmentality 6y ago
        It's a knee-jerk reaction because my comment said nothing about blame, and your response was entirely about who to blame.
        majormajor 6y ago
        Ah, I see, I view it as on-topic for the thread, though, since the thread-starting post from 'lettergram put blame on Twitter, etc, for the feelings of these potential protestors.
linuxftw 6y ago
BLM had all these same things, why wasn't that enough for them?
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  Ah, another hot take that a summer of protests, mostly peaceful and at times violent, happening across the country against a history of government agents killing and abusing (mostly) minorities, is the same as a group of conspiracy theorists rallying together at the behest of the lame-duck president to invade the capitol building during a session of Congress to certify the results of a fair election. If we're whatabouting, the capitol-invaders got off mostly scot-free in the moment, compared to hundreds of more-peaceful protesters who were maced, beaten and detained by cops for much less. https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrection-to-black-lives-matter-protests https://www.good.is/stop-equating-trumps-capitol-insurrectio... https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/ https://wannabewonk.com/coup-part-two/
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    This entire post is about protesting.... so? It was a rhetorical question, meaning that sometimes 'representation' is really not representation at all, and not a comment on BLM. In fact, I agree with much of what BLM is protesting for.
    - unethical_ban 6y ago
      Yes, all protest at some level is about anger over government action/inaction, a direct voice of the people when they feel unheard. But the first "capitol defender" u/lettergram was suggesting that Trump should have his Twitter back to abuse reality, so his loyalists will feel heard. The person you responded to was making the point that these people can be heard, and have been heard. Their point is invalid. I don't think we disagree as much as it seems. Postscript: Check that first link to see why I got rebuttal-happy when you compared it to BLM. A lot of bad-faith or otherwise ignorant actors are trying to draw false equivalence to the movements/actions, and the narrative needs to be challenged.
ordinaryradical 6y ago
They also have a majority in the Supreme Court. It’s such an idiotic argument because it’s obvious they have a voice and significant representation at the state and federal level. 75 million of them voted their congresspeople in and now because they lost the presidency we have to tiptoe around their feelings while they foment an insurrection? What?
- mod 6y ago
  Part of the threat to them was the potential loss of the court, as well, with the "pack the court" talk. /r/politics, prior to the election, was in a fervor about how this might be the last "true election" of their lifetime. That they would forever lose their voice, etc. Have their rights stripped. It's not so wild that the people on the other side would feel the same way, especially when the talk was literally about taking away the ability for Republicans to control any branches and "making sure this can never happen again." Besides packing the court, other ideas to accomplish that included redistricting, mandatory voting, and adding some left-leaning territories as states.
  - ordinaryradical 6y ago
    The r/politics crowd spouting that crap are also fools, just a left wing variant. The extremes have to convince you “everything lies in the balance” to get you to go along with their kookery. We should indulge neither end of the spectrum with foolish talk or justifications of their outlandish theories and feelings of (unjustified) grievance and fear.
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    Are any of those things unconstitutional? If so, take it to court. If not, then suck it up. I'm tired of apologizing for my country to every group with a grievance and a camera. Especially when they all invariably claim to be loyal citizens and patriots. Now along comes an aggrieved group that wants even more than my apology, they want me to give up my constitutional order. How 'bout NO. That attack at the Capitol has put me over the top. You want change? Vote like everyone else and accept the outcome. It's time to stop coddling these people.

pbourke 6y ago

> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. Uh, what? Trump lost according to the rules of the Electoral College and lost the popular vote by millions. This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era?

majormajor 6y ago
> This is just a regular old election loss. Why should it be worse than any other loss in the modern era? Twitter, FB, Fox, OAN, etc, have been helping the President spread lies about not actually losing for months (going back to before the election itself). If people believe that, then this is the logical result. It's astonishing how many people think the more dangerous thing is that the social media companies are rethinking their hands-off approach... The really dangerous thing is the people fanning the flames for profit and disclaiming responsibility for their actions under the guise of "free speech." "I didn't destroy the country, I just told other people to..."

obmelvin 6y ago

Trump's voice has hardly been taken from him. He has chosen to be less public in recent months/weeks. Presidents have communicated via TV and radio for much longer than they have via Twitter.

InitialLastName 6y ago
This ^. Trump can post anything he likes on the White House website. He is one of a very small number of people in the country that if he said "I want to address the nation", it would be on every single network and multiple streaming websites. None of the president's normal communication outlets have been curtailed. All that's happened is that some companies have decided to stop blindly quoting him.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> feel like they don’t have a voice Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That will prohibit him from holding public office in the future, so they won't even be able to hope for a do-over in '24. I doubt that will do much to calm them.

danhak 6y ago
> Congress is about to impeach Trump (successfully this time, since the Democrats now control the Senate). That’s not how that works. Conviction in the Senate requires a 2/3 majority vote, which is vanishingly unlikely even with Democratic control.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The first impeachment attempt seemed to have a reasonable chance on paper - but quickly fell apart because Democrats demanded running up the list of charges such that the entire process became a farce. Unless Democrats can really stick to one well aimed narrow charge, this one will likely fall apart too. They only need to include one ridiculous charge to have Republicans nope out.
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    There were only two articles of impeachment. How was that "running up the list of charges"
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Previous to the articles themselves was an almost 700 page investigative report - and that report came up again, and again, and again. Had it been constrained to the phone call and the facts of that specific case, it would have been a very strong case - but instead that report's other findings were so questioned and interrogated it ruined the entire case. Trump should have been impeached for that phone call. Drawing any attention away from that was a mistake.

dragontamer 6y ago

> Now, lots of people feel they have taxation without representation. That's the phrase used by DC Residents. Which has just been demonstrated: 1. The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot. The DC National Guard report to the President (EDIT: and the President took 3-hours 10 minutes before the DC National Guard responded to the break-in. From 2:30 to 5:40, the DC National Guard waited. So needless to say, DC Residents aren't exactly feeling safe about the President's ability to protect them) 2. The DC Residents, where the riot took place, have no Representative nor a Senator to represent them. 3. DC Residents pay taxes, just like everyone else in this country. But without a substantial Representative nor a Senator to carry their voice (on such important issues like: maybe the Mayor should have been in charge of the police forces on 1/6th, instead of Trump). -------- I presume that those who lost the election still have a Representative, a Governor who controls their own military (a local National Guard and/or militia of some kind), two Senators and more. DC Residents on the other hand: show the true "taxation without representation". What it actually feels like to not have power over your own city.

starik36 6y ago
> The DC Mayor was powerless to stop the riot. My understanding is that the Mayor specifically asked other law enforcement agencies to stay away. Draw your own conspiracies from this. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-07/dc-riots-capitol-police-reject-federal-help https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2021-01-07/dc-riots-c...
- dragontamer 6y ago
  The DC Mayor does NOT control the Capitol Police. I know its a confusing situation. But your story has nothing to do with the DC Mayor. EDIT: For yall who are downvoting me. The Mayor controls the DC Metropolitan Police Department. A COMPLETELY different set of officers than the Capitol Police. Furthermore, the DC Mayor has no access to a National Guard militia for backup, and relies upon the President for that. That's just the facts in this matter.
  - starik36 6y ago

unethical_ban 6y ago

There is an ounce of truth and a pound of trash in this. I'll explain. Truth: In theory, peoples' grievances need to be heard. Trump did not get elected simply because he is a loudmouth contrarian criminal xenophobe. He also got elected over concerns for American manufacturing, a counterbalance to extreme-leftist social changes, the hope for real infrastructure investment, etc. However, in 2020, the idea of not being heard is pretty crap. "Being heard" doesn't mean "do everything you ask all the time". Trump has spread constant, factual lies, and as the President, incited violence at the Capitol. The people marching currently, the pretext of which is to argue that the free and fair election of Biden is illegitimate because it isn't who they want, is garbage. That grievance does not warrant any more attention than it has been given; that there is no evidence of systemic fraud at any level, and that this is a well-vetted assertion. Finally, while "primary sources" are nice to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense.

lettergram 6y ago
While I largely disagree, it’s a fair opinion. However, to your last point: > to have, it is suspicious to me that you don't trust the FBI on this. I'm no blind supporter of LEO (Ha!) but how are you suspicious of the claim, given the behavior and events of the past week/two months? It makes no sense. No one had firearms at the capital, at least so far as I’m aware. Had they brought them that would be a different story. I also built a platform to monitor social networks (check my profile). I haven’t picked anything up like all 50 states protesting. A few surely, but idk not some crazy coordination or anything (honestly seems more from the left). Could be underground, but idk. The capital protest had far more going on.
- Diederich 6y ago
  > No one had firearms at the capital I assume you mean among the rioters: are you sure? I saw video of a guy pulling up his jacket showing a handgun stuffed in his pants.
- justforyou 6y ago

spamizbad 6y ago

Their voice, democratically, is more powerful per-vote than your typical Democratic voter due to their geographic distribution (and, in the house, gerrymandering). I can't find it now, but I saw some data that showed if the votes were split 50/50 Republicans would control the white house, 57 Senate seats, and hold a solid house majority. Democrats are able to win marginal victories because they are a big tent party that tries to build a more moderate coalition of voters, while pulling in the country's left flank. Joe Biden would be a center-right politician in most western democracies, despite being considered the "left wing" candidate in the United States. Republicans need to take fewer steps to the center to build a winning coalition. For example, there's a real chance Trump could have won with a 2nd round of COVID stimulus checks, but he was ultimately talked out such measures by conservative economic advisors (despite majority of his own supporters wanted a more robust stimulus plan for COVID) So it would have been a win-win. Unfortunately, by capitulating to a specific niche in his party it cost him popular support and ultimately the election. The sad truth is, if Trump listened to his own supporters and actually governed as a populist he would have easily won reelection and this whole mess would have been avoided. But instead, he merely communicated like a populist but chose to govern more like a crummy Jeb Bush. If you look at the bills passed by the 115th congress[1] nothing looks particularly populist or even "Trumpian". Branding vs execution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress#Enacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress#E...

rconti 6y ago

This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad. If you add up all of the races across the country, a large majority of voters got a president/senator/governor they didn't want. Most of them suck it up and move on with their lives. Some get their feelings in a bunch and can't let go. Letting this guy whine on twitter about how unfair the world is to him 24x7 sure hasn't lowered the tensions in the past 4 years. It's given us exactly what we have now.

tzs 6y ago
> This is how it works every election cycle. The candidate with fewer voters loses, and those voters are sad. Except in 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016.

justforyou 6y ago

One can not appease bad faith actors without being taken advantage of.

standardUser 6y ago

The problem is, Trump supporters obviously do have a voice, a very loud one in fact, but their dedicated media sphere constantly tells them they don't. And it will keep telling them that no matter what happens. Being the victim and fighting against the unjust, oppressive 'others' is what sustains the entire movement.