3 ms·

100%. It's would have far better to just defeat Trump in 2024, and let him go slink into the shadows. Now a red line has been crossed, the GOP is seems to be

100%. It's would have far better to just defeat Trump in 2024, and let him go slink into the shadows. Now a red line has been crossed, the GOP is seems to be gearing up for civil war. They keep talking about the 6 Christians martyred and how no corporation or the "Biden Regime" has acknowledged them. Desantis has come out on Trump's side, even though days ago he said he wouldn't. Escalation is occurring, and it's sheer arrogance to think this thing doesn't reek of pure politics. I'm legitimately scared we have summoned something we cannot contain.

cocacola1 4y ago
Metaphorical civil war or literal civil war?
ahiknsr 4y ago
> Now a red line has been crossed Now we crossed a red line? I thought Trump crossed it when he tried to overthrow the government?
- nemo44x 4y ago
  Did he though? Does anyone really believe that other than the most breathless opponents and news stations? I never voted for the guy but it’s clear that the “insurrection” was hardly that and more of a protest that turned into a lawless riot. Of which we’d seen politicians and media celebrate a lot of over the previous year. Isn’t a riot the language of the unheard, after all?
  - Timon3 4y ago
    Aren't you ignoring all the planning that was happening? Trump specifically wanted a riot during the certification to disrupt the process. This would (according to fringe legal theories) allow Pence to choose "alternative" state delegates, which would have given Trump the win. We know that Trump was following this legal strategy. Why is it important whether Jan6 was an insurrection or a riot?
    - nemo44x 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - ahiknsr 4y ago
        > There was a rally and it got out of hand. That's pretty much it So trump has nothing to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot ?
      - Timon3 4y ago
        > I really don't believe any of that. Okay, you don't believe that Trump attempted to follow this fringe legal theory. We have the Eastman memos, we have communications inside the trump administration about them, it just so happened that "alternative electors" stood ready, and the protest - which Trump specifically scheduled to get to the location of the EC election at the right time (remember, he even said he'd walk there with them) - just so happened to be led through the building, as you yourself stated. Is there anything in the above paragraph that you disagree with? I can produce the evidence I've seen since the insurrection for each of the points, but you'll have to accept it in good faith if you ask for it (reasonably, of course, if you have specific disagreements). > This entire "fringe legal theory" idea is pure conjecture. No, it really is not. As I said we have internal communications, and I even distinctly remember it being floated on public conservative forums before Jan6. But the worst part for me? I can't point to anything that Trump would have done differently had he actually followed this strategy. That's the thing that puzzles me. Isn't it a bit eery just how well everything lines up around his actions? So he can keep plausible deniability? > Trump even told people to go home and to be peaceful. Like, let's go over this point. The capitol police started getting overwhelmed and pushed back around 1:30pm. Some time around, or slightly after, this I remember watching a livestream from one of the protesters. Then, at 2:24pm Trump tweeted: Trump> Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth! He must already have been aware of the protest. I was, and I was on the other side of the world. Then, at 2:38pm he tweets: Trump> Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! Great, at last, a call for peace. But now explain to me. Let's say you were in Trumps position AND you wanted to follow the previously-described legal theory AND you wanted to keep plausible deniability. What would you have done differently?

cocacola1 4y ago

Metaphorical civil war or literal civil war?

ahiknsr 4y ago

> Now a red line has been crossed Now we crossed a red line? I thought Trump crossed it when he tried to overthrow the government?

nemo44x 4y ago
Did he though? Does anyone really believe that other than the most breathless opponents and news stations? I never voted for the guy but it’s clear that the “insurrection” was hardly that and more of a protest that turned into a lawless riot. Of which we’d seen politicians and media celebrate a lot of over the previous year. Isn’t a riot the language of the unheard, after all?
- Timon3 4y ago
  Aren't you ignoring all the planning that was happening? Trump specifically wanted a riot during the certification to disrupt the process. This would (according to fringe legal theories) allow Pence to choose "alternative" state delegates, which would have given Trump the win. We know that Trump was following this legal strategy. Why is it important whether Jan6 was an insurrection or a riot?
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - ahiknsr 4y ago
      > There was a rally and it got out of hand. That's pretty much it So trump has nothing to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot ?
    - Timon3 4y ago
      > I really don't believe any of that. Okay, you don't believe that Trump attempted to follow this fringe legal theory. We have the Eastman memos, we have communications inside the trump administration about them, it just so happened that "alternative electors" stood ready, and the protest - which Trump specifically scheduled to get to the location of the EC election at the right time (remember, he even said he'd walk there with them) - just so happened to be led through the building, as you yourself stated. Is there anything in the above paragraph that you disagree with? I can produce the evidence I've seen since the insurrection for each of the points, but you'll have to accept it in good faith if you ask for it (reasonably, of course, if you have specific disagreements). > This entire "fringe legal theory" idea is pure conjecture. No, it really is not. As I said we have internal communications, and I even distinctly remember it being floated on public conservative forums before Jan6. But the worst part for me? I can't point to anything that Trump would have done differently had he actually followed this strategy. That's the thing that puzzles me. Isn't it a bit eery just how well everything lines up around his actions? So he can keep plausible deniability? > Trump even told people to go home and to be peaceful. Like, let's go over this point. The capitol police started getting overwhelmed and pushed back around 1:30pm. Some time around, or slightly after, this I remember watching a livestream from one of the protesters. Then, at 2:24pm Trump tweeted: Trump> Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth! He must already have been aware of the protest. I was, and I was on the other side of the world. Then, at 2:38pm he tweets: Trump> Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful! Great, at last, a call for peace. But now explain to me. Let's say you were in Trumps position AND you wanted to follow the previously-described legal theory AND you wanted to keep plausible deniability. What would you have done differently?