4 ms·
> Trump attempted to change Pences mind multiple times, including tweets painting a target on his back while the terrorist attack was underway. Trump was aware
by proc0 2y ago
> Trump attempted to change Pences mind multiple times, including tweets painting a target on his back while the terrorist attack was underway. Trump was aware of the attack going on, and instead of making statements to discourage violence, he directed the terrorists at Pence while he still perceived a chance for things to go his way.
I think it's fair to say Trump incited a riot and was directing the energy at Pence, because that was the legal option left. He could have instead demanded a recount and have the entire crowd protest the entire election instead of that specific move of the electoral certification. An intent to actually overthrow the government would have been a bigger coordinated effort instead of plausible deniable acts that failed rather quickly. At worst Trump is an opportunist here and that doesn't seem enough to call it an insurrection.
> A delay wasn't going to make people change their minds, but direct threats of violence (remember the chants and the gallows?) stoked by the sitting president sure could have.
There was a time that Trump had to take cover in a bunker because of some riots (link below), and that was never called an insurrection. And of course there have been lots of threats directed at Trump since 2016. The only difference in J6 was that it had to do with election results, but in theory that should be something that can be protested, and as a result it can devolve into a riot.
> This is what I can't understand - the sitting president and their party put the country in a position where, if one person had bowed to their pressure, the election would have been overturned.
I just don't think this can be coerced by force. It's not like you point a gun at Pence and he signs some papers and democracy is over. Everybody would need to witness Pence changing his mind willingly. It works through legal means and political consensus. If it becomes obvious that Pence did something against his own will, then it's a criminal matter that delays the process, and there is no way Pence would be coerced AND also pretend like everything is alright.
All of those tweets are talking about the process itself and what legal paths to take. If there was a real intention to overthrow the government, there is no need to stick to the legal paths. I can grant that the tone of the tweets is careless and also expected of Trump, but in my opinion the four years of getting attacked relentlessly by the media and political establishment contributes to this.
> How are you not all extremely scared of the consequences for your country?
The constitution and the branches of government are structured in a way that prevents this type of corruption. The track record of no dictators is evidence of this, compared to Europe who had so many dictators in the 20th century. Additionally Trump is old and there is no way he can go on for another term anyway.
*https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-george-floyd-politics-a2326518da6b25b4509bef1ec85f5d7f https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-george-f...
- Timon3 2y ago> I think it's fair to say Trump incited a riot and was directing the energy at Pence, because that was the legal option left. Yes, it was his only legal option left to overturn the election and stay in power. This means that he attempted to overturn the election and stay in power. Our whole discussion should end here, but somehow his attempt is supposed to be acceptable, because it relies on a never-before used reading of documents, which coincidentally could have been allowed by the same courts he stacked? > An intent to actually overthrow the government would have been a bigger coordinated effort instead of plausible deniable acts that failed rather quickly. At worst Trump is an opportunist here and that doesn't seem enough to call it an insurrection. But there was a bigger coordinated effort. Fake electors were actually sent and stood ready. Republicans coordinated with leaders of multiple organizations, including the Proud Boys, and organized the rally close to the Capitol. Dozens of people worked to make the whole plot possible, and only a few individuals stopped it by not going along, which Trump attempted to coerce via indirect threats of violence. I won't engage in discussions on your second paragraph - you're completely misrepresenting the situation, and I don't think that this point was brought up in good faith. There was no coordination by Democrats with members of supporting organizations, or anything comparable to fake electors, during the situation you mentioned. You're once again ignoring all of the actions taken behind the scenes, which I've mentioned before - why are you ignoring it again?
- proc0 2y ago> You're once again ignoring all of the actions taken behind the scenes, which I've mentioned before - why are you ignoring it again? Because it was about taking the available legal paths, and going into the details of that is already stretching the definition of insurrection. It could be a bad faith attempt at bending the rules, but that is still within the bounds of the system. Also every president will appoint judges that are favorable to their side, all the other presidents did the same. The larger coordination that you mention is mostly due to a combination of two things. Trust in the institutions is extremely low, and Trump has been running on narrative of being the victim of those who represent those institutions (aka the establishment). This motivates large unstructured groups that can only coordinate indirectly (through action/reaction), and since they all share the same perspective it might seem more coordinated than it is. In short I see dirty politics and bending the rules on both sides creating a vicious cycle. Trump won 2016 unexpectedly by doubling down on bad rhetoric, then the Democrats and media thought he deserved to be relentlessly attacked along with his supporters for four years (for saying mean things, or saying the wrong things). This incentivized his supporters to go along with Trump's attempt at bending the rules and causing a riot over losing the election, which then made Democrats throw the entire book at him with all kinds of charges, which inevitably looks like they are going after him for political reasons, cementing the narrative that the establishment is corrupt (whether or not it is, it creates the perception). Hopefully it's not too late for each side to reflect on how they contributed to this cycle. Whoever wins in November isn't going to end the country, unless people actually believe it and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.