(06-10-2022 01:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

Nice... but I made zero references to changes in my viewpoint after last night. I wonder where you came up with the bolded?

You seem excited.

LOL... what? Nah, dude. Perhaps you are projecting.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

Wait... are we talking about last night's hearing or are we taking this back to the BLM riots? Why?

because both were protests that got out of hand. yet t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶v̶a̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ both sides minimize the actions of those on their size and emphasize the actions of those on the opposing side.

FIFY, my friend.

Well, at least I got you to admit you were minimizing the actions of the BLM team.

(06-10-2022 01:10 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

A coup attempt?? Seriously?? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Had they quite literally occupied the entire campus, exactly what would they have done to 'take over' the government?

What you likely mean is that I don't buy the partisan BS story of a 'coup' they want to tell here, and you don't like that so you think I'm missing something by comparison. I'm sorry Lad, you're just entirely wrong about what I think once again.

I'm relaying what I watched on TV last night. The coup attempt comment was not focused solely on the rioters and those physically trying to enter and take over the Capitol - it also encompasses (and potentially focuses on) the efforts made by Trump and his team to try and overturn the election results.

I'm not saying anything about your buying or selling anything - and I didn't try to comment on what your were thinking. I commented on what I felt your comment was missing and what was not being addressed by just focusing on the riot at the Capitol.

(06-10-2022 01:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

Nice... but I made zero references to changes in my viewpoint after last night. I wonder where you came up with the bolded?

You seem excited.

LOL... what? Nah, dude. Perhaps you are projecting.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

Wait... are we talking about last night's hearing or are we taking this back to the BLM riots? Why?

because both were protests that got out of hand. yet t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶v̶a̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ both sides minimize the actions of those on their size and emphasize the actions of those on the opposing side.

FIFY, my friend.

Well, at least I got you to admit you were minimizing the actions of the BLM team.

It's pretty clear that both sides are guilty of that. It's funny that you only point out the other side. Somehow that seems to be your m.o.

(06-10-2022 01:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there any thinking person who does not believe the result/verdict was written in rough draft before the committee was assembled?

What is the result that the committee has produced/found?

Get real.

Care to elaborate?

I'm interested in what you think the results are, so that way we can actually discuss whether or not they were written in rough draft beforehand.

(06-10-2022 01:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

C'mon OO, there's no goal post moving here and you know it. January 6 is being described as a coup attempt because it was trying to overturn the result of an election - that was made abundantly clear in the hearing last night. So overturning a federal election is inherently part of discussing the argument that January 6 was an attempted coup. If you think I'm moving goal posts, please give me a better explanation as to why you think it is.

Speaking to the Autonomous Zone - someone wanting to replace the US government is different than someone trying to replace the US government. Can you walk me through how the Autonomous Zone tried to replace the US government? What concrete steps were taken to do so? And then, how does that scale compare to what the committee is saying took place on Jan 6?

My comment above relates to that - the committee made it clear that they have evidence that will explain how the Trump admin had a plan that they tried to execute that would have replaced the US government (i.e., incoming Biden administration).

As I see it, what you're arguing is akin to comparing someone saying they wish the president was dead is the same as Lee Harvey assassinating JFK. Just miles and miles and miles apart. It also ignores that the Autonomous Zone was not a hallmark of all (or even most) BLM protests, so it comes a bit out of left field when trying to compare the BLM riots to the Capitol riots.

Actually I was comparing THAT BLM riot to THAT Jan. 6 riot, one to one. You have moved the goalpost for me to defend comparing to all the others.

When you declare an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the instituted government is not recognized, you have replaced that instituted government with a different one.

Yes, I know you were comparing the physical violence to each other - that is why I said "I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup."

I'm pointing out to you that I think you're missing a critical element that the committee pointed out last night that clearly distinguished the January 6 actions from the BLM protests. The committee appears to be saying that there was a more nefarious action lurking under the surface of the January 6 riots, one that they felt comfortable enough calling a coup attempt.

I'm interested to see what evidence they have that could raise any of the activities on January 6 to a coup attempt. A spontaneous riot would not raise to that level, and it sounds like they're arguing that there was something more there.

What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

(06-10-2022 11:11 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  PArt of the reason 1/6 happened is because BLM happened. If you don't get upset when people 'aggressively' protest others (and lots of the left didn't) then you can't be upset when it comes to YOUR door. I'm not saying they thought that... but I am saying that the protests and the reaction by the left to a lot of it certainly didn't discourage them... That doesn't excuse what these people did, and CERTAINLY doesn't excuse anything else any of them may have done...

Yes.

(06-10-2022 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

What would shock you more:
1. The committee finds that there was an attempted coup led/enabled by Trump and his family and team
2. The committee finds that there was no attempted coup involving Truump, his family, and team.

I think that committee's findings have been baked into the cake since before the committee existed. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Inflation up to 8.6%
Gas up to 4.99
Dow down 880.00
10,000 central Americans on their way to the border


What are we talking about? This committee.

Mission accomplished.

Today, Biden spoke and blamed inflation on Putin, oil companies, and Republicans. Nowhere on on the list did he mention himself or his policies. The buck stops over there - anywhere but here.

I saw a graph: Inflation was 1.4% when he was inaugurated. It was already 7% when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Brings up this question: Is Biden just lying? Wouldn't it be worse if he really believed what he is saying?

(06-10-2022 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

C'mon OO, there's no goal post moving here and you know it. January 6 is being described as a coup attempt because it was trying to overturn the result of an election - that was made abundantly clear in the hearing last night. So overturning a federal election is inherently part of discussing the argument that January 6 was an attempted coup. If you think I'm moving goal posts, please give me a better explanation as to why you think it is.

Speaking to the Autonomous Zone - someone wanting to replace the US government is different than someone trying to replace the US government. Can you walk me through how the Autonomous Zone tried to replace the US government? What concrete steps were taken to do so? And then, how does that scale compare to what the committee is saying took place on Jan 6?

My comment above relates to that - the committee made it clear that they have evidence that will explain how the Trump admin had a plan that they tried to execute that would have replaced the US government (i.e., incoming Biden administration).

As I see it, what you're arguing is akin to comparing someone saying they wish the president was dead is the same as Lee Harvey assassinating JFK. Just miles and miles and miles apart. It also ignores that the Autonomous Zone was not a hallmark of all (or even most) BLM protests, so it comes a bit out of left field when trying to compare the BLM riots to the Capitol riots.

The funny thing is that most will spot you that at least a few individuals went to the Capitol with the intent of stopping a validation of the electoral college votes.

I will readily grant you that somewhere between a dozen and 30 people did this.

But somehow that will be greatly exaggerated to much, much, much, much more than that. Well ignore the future potential tense -- based on *your* own comments above that is what all of your gnashing is.

Charge 'em, send 'em away. But somehow since it is politically advantageous for progressives to inflate those actions of a very small few to somehow a current, urgent, moral criss --- it is inflated as such. Much as you do in this thread.


Maybe if you bang the drum enough you might attract some more adherents to the Chicken Little act you keep bringing forth.

(06-10-2022 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

What would shock you more:
1. The committee finds that there was an attempted coup led/enabled by Trump and his family and team
2. The committee finds that there was no attempted coup involving Truump, his family, and team.

I think that committee's findings have been baked into the cake since before the committee existed. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I’d hope you would be equally shocked if sufficient evidence came to light that a sitting US president planned a coup that would disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

That’s a really shocking and dangerous thing!

And, since you seem somewhat obtuse as to the goals of the committee, it is three-fold ---

1) Keep the fierce moral urgency of Jan 6 fresh and the actions of a dozen to three dozen people at the forefront of the political talk, much as any form of race baiting topics perform the same function overall for progressives;

2) Detract from the absolute **** performance from democratic leadership in the Congress and double **** performance from President Happy Meal as being an impact in the current election;

3) Keep Donald Trump from running as a candidate.

For the record, the first two are typical progressive sleight of hand moves, and the last I have zero problem with.

If the goal was an investigation of the truth, they perhaps would have formed it, and operated it, under and according to the rules of Congress. Leave it to a bunch of shitbird progreessives to can forming it and operating it udner the rules when it might not go completely their way. Again, fodder for the 'progressive rule on anything' issue that that I have spolen of earlier. That is -- when a rule exists that precludes an ends, simply either ignore it or sue on it.'

It is going to be funny to see Steve Bannon use that utter disregard of the rules in the formation and operation of the committee as a defense to the grandstand of his arrest, and I hope the current grandstand victim does the same.

(06-10-2022 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

What would shock you more:
1. The committee finds that there was an attempted coup led/enabled by Trump and his family and team
2. The committee finds that there was no attempted coup involving Truump, his family, and team.

I think that committee's findings have been baked into the cake since before the committee existed. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I’d hope you would be equally shocked if sufficient evidence came to light that a sitting US president planned a coup that would disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

That’s a really shocking and dangerous thing!

Since the committee already selectively edited out Trump's call for protesters to 'go home' -- perhaps color me skeptical out of the gates.

First, Trump (let alone *any* candidate) has every right to seek every legal means of redress to an election dispute. That is something the left, and the media (why do I separate those conjoined groups) seemingly ignores in the issues that they bring forward.

But the level of proof for most embedded progs seems to be 'how dare he solicit legal advice on how to challenge the issue'.

I would hazard a guess that the above would be proof sufficient for you. It isnt for me. Imagine that, how dare I opine that anyone has the absolute right to seek advice on redress to an election dispute I imagine now. The horrors that that occur.....

(06-10-2022 04:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

C'mon OO, there's no goal post moving here and you know it. January 6 is being described as a coup attempt because it was trying to overturn the result of an election - that was made abundantly clear in the hearing last night. So overturning a federal election is inherently part of discussing the argument that January 6 was an attempted coup. If you think I'm moving goal posts, please give me a better explanation as to why you think it is.

Speaking to the Autonomous Zone - someone wanting to replace the US government is different than someone trying to replace the US government. Can you walk me through how the Autonomous Zone tried to replace the US government? What concrete steps were taken to do so? And then, how does that scale compare to what the committee is saying took place on Jan 6?

My comment above relates to that - the committee made it clear that they have evidence that will explain how the Trump admin had a plan that they tried to execute that would have replaced the US government (i.e., incoming Biden administration).

As I see it, what you're arguing is akin to comparing someone saying they wish the president was dead is the same as Lee Harvey assassinating JFK. Just miles and miles and miles apart. It also ignores that the Autonomous Zone was not a hallmark of all (or even most) BLM protests, so it comes a bit out of left field when trying to compare the BLM riots to the Capitol riots.

The funny thing is that most will spot you that at least a few individuals went to the Capitol with the intent of stopping a validation of the electoral college votes.

I will readily grant you that somewhere between a dozen and 30 people did this.

But somehow that will be greatly exaggerated to much, much, much, much more than that. Well ignore the future potential tense -- based on *your* own comments above that is what all of your gnashing is.

Charge 'em, send 'em away. But somehow since it is politically advantageous for progressives to inflate those actions of a very small few to somehow a current, urgent, moral criss --- it is inflated as such. Much as you do in this thread.


Maybe if you bang the drum enough you might attract some more adherents to the Chicken Little act you keep bringing forth.

What are you referring to specifically with the “Chicken Little act”?

Is it that I’m thinking the committee will make a case that the sitting president tried to overturn the election?

(06-10-2022 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

What would shock you more:
1. The committee finds that there was an attempted coup led/enabled by Trump and his family and team
2. The committee finds that there was no attempted coup involving Truump, his family, and team.

I think that committee's findings have been baked into the cake since before the committee existed. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I’d hope you would be equally shocked if sufficient evidence came to light that a sitting US president planned a coup that would disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

That’s a really shocking and dangerous thing!

Since the committee already selectively edited out Trump's call for protesters to 'go home' -- perhaps color me skeptical out of the gates.

First, Trump (let alone *any* candidate) has every right to seek every legal means of redress to an election dispute. That is something the left, and the media (why do I separate those conjoined groups) seemingly ignores in the issues that they bring forward.

But the level of proof for most embedded progs seems to be 'how dare he solicit legal advice on how to challenge the issue'.

I would hazard a guess that the above would be proof sufficient for you. It isnt for me. Imagine that, how dare I opine that anyone has the absolute right to seek advice on redress to an election dispute I imagine now. The horrors that that occur.....

Ironically, the committee explicitly addressed that Trump was completely within his right to legally challenge the election.

Your guess would be wrong, by the way. I don’t think Trump filing lawsuits is evidence of a coup attempt in the slightest.

Frankly, I don’t think you’re reading what I am typing, and are instead engaging me with a preconceived notion of how I think. I don’t know if there’s sufficient evidence of anything here. I’m commenting on what I saw and heard and how I am interpreting that. We’ll have to wait and see how things unfold.

(06-10-2022 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ironically, the committee explicitly addressed that Trump was completely within his right to legally challenge the election.
Your guess would be wrong, by the way. I don’t think Trump filing lawsuits is evidence of a coup attempt in the slightest.
Frankly, I don’t think you’re reading what I am typing, and are instead engaging me with a preconceived notion of how I think. I don’t know if there’s sufficient evidence of anything here. I’m commenting on what I saw and heard and how I am interpreting that. We’ll have to wait and see how things unfold.

Well, they can't very well conclude that there is no right to challenge without throwing considerable shade on Hillary and AlGore.

I agree that filing lawsuits is not evidence of a coup attempt, but I have little confidence that this hyper-partisan committee won't try to make it look like evidence. There is zero integrity among the members of the committee and none inherent in the process upon which they have embarked.

I think the problem is that you want to be perceived as thinking objectively and open-mindedly, but you clearly vote for people who don't.

Its not just 'filing lawsuits' --- it is the actions of seeking legal opinions to back his stance that they will seek to call into question. Since, that has been the modus of the left to this point.

Noting that the sole issue of 'filing lawsuits' is the tip of the iceberg in that arena. And 'filing lawsuits' doesnt really touch on much of the actions undertaken by Trump.

For the record, I am in full support of the effort to make those statutes at the core of those issues unambiguous as to the role of the VP in the electoral proceedings, and fully unambiguous that the VP only exercises ministerial duties in that role.

The 'filing lawsuits' verbiage doesnt impact in the slightest as to what happened at the Capitol on that day. The term saying 'filing lawsuits' seems to boil down to a throwaway non sequitor given the above issues. Thus, I am not surprised it was used in that manner.

There is a passel more of issues that are seemingly boiling down to a non-sequitor in these proceedings, mind you.

(06-10-2022 04:52 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 03:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  What should be the actions of Americans if they think an election has been stolen? Meek acceptance?

I must agree that making up false claims and creating false evidence, as the Dems did in 2016, is preferable to armed conflict or violence of any kind. But I don't think there was much in the way of arms in the Jan. 6 riot. I think few, if any, went there expecting to overthrow the government by force.

I think there were also a lot of BLM protesters who did not go to the protests in anticipation of looting stores. But things develop in those kinds of situations.

I agree that the simple act of rioting in the Capitol would not be described as a coup attempt. But once again, it seems like the committee has found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt.

For someone who is arguing that the outcome was drafted ahead of the committee investigation, you seem to be dead set on an outcome.

I was rather shocked that the committee was willing to call this an attempted coup, and I want to know why.

What would shock you more:
1. The committee finds that there was an attempted coup led/enabled by Trump and his family and team
2. The committee finds that there was no attempted coup involving Truump, his family, and team.

I think that committee's findings have been baked into the cake since before the committee existed. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

I’d hope you would be equally shocked if sufficient evidence came to light that a sitting US president planned a coup that would disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

That’s a really shocking and dangerous thing!

I would be amazed and shocked if that happened.

I notice you use the word “planned”. Want to stick with that? Your friends are going with “incited” or “allowed”.

IAC, you haven’t told me which result I posited would shock you more.