Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

Just what the fuck was he trying to do, in your opinion?

Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

He didn't just push the lie. He submitted fraudulent documents to states. He actively conspired and planned to get the false documents accepted into federal proceedings. They wanted to hang Mike Pence because he would not accept the fraudulent documents. 

THEY BROUGHT FUCKING GALLOWS TO THE CAPITAL 

 

That's not just talking about things, man. That's conspiracy and insurrection.

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted
1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Just what the fuck was he trying to do, in your opinion?

Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do. 

 

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's on tape trying to do it. 

Where? 

  • Fuck You 2
Posted (edited)

Interesting posts, @BHMCruiser. I'm in the camp that believes the actions of Jan 6 were obviously efforts to seize the government illegally. It matters to lawyers and judges if you can define it under a certain legal code. Whether they can or not doesn't alter my opinion of what I saw and what I have read.

I've been kicking around the stange notion that the obvious doesn't mean so much anymore. That someone who did what Trump did, which we saw, and not be eliminated out of hand from holding office is just plain bizarre. Trump may not fit the narrow definition of an insurrectionist or traitor, but he is clearly a dangerous enemy of the republic.

He has invited whatever a loyal citizen of the US might do to him.

We have the same opinion of the real problem being the electorate. Trump's presence on the ballot supported by that electorate is a combination that is both shocking and dangerous.

Edited by RomaVicta
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly?

I don't think there's anything I could say to convince you that trump did anything wrong, but I would argue that the brightest red line was crossed when they had to evacuate both chambers of congress, and when trump was ignoring their calls while they were actively under siege, and acting against his military commanders repeated requests to go quell the situation

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

It became an insurrection when his criminal conspiracy to remain in power despite losing led him to incite a violent assault upon the Capitol as his method of pressuring allied members of Congress to refuse to certify the electoral votes.

This isn't a hard question. There's no gray here. It's entirely black and white, and you're just pretending otherwise.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

  • Fuck You 13
Posted
1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Interesting posts, @BHMCruiser. I'm in the camp that believes the actions of Jan 6 were obviously efforts to seize the government illegally. It matters to lawyers and judges if you can define it under a certain legal code. Whether they can or not doesn't alter my opinion of what I saw and what I have read.

I've been kicking around the stange notion that the obvious doesn't mean so much anymore. That someone who did what Trump did and which we saw and not be eliminated out of hand from holding office is just plain bizarre. Trump may not fit the narrow definition of an insurrectionist or traitor, but he is clearly a dangerous enemy of the republic.

He has invited whatever a loyal citizen of the US might do to him.

We have the same opinion of the real problem being the electorate. Trump's presence on the ballot supported by that electorate is a combination that is both shocking and dangerous.

Very valid points. Of course I am shocked that an electorate would choose Trump OR Biden but then again what the fuck do I know

  • Fuck You 1
Posted (edited)

TIL that when a violent mob storm the United States fucking Capitol in the name of, and at the behest of, a political candidate to protect his incumbency and reverse a legally-recognized election result, it is not an insurrection.

 

Edited by Stilicho
for the purely fucking pedantic
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do. 

 

Where? 

It's because of obtuse cunts like you that we're going to end up with a regarded dictatorship.  Fuck you. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, BHMCruiser said:

what the fuck do I know

apparently, less than a box of fucking rocks if you think that trump and HRC are equivalent in their behavior post-electoral loss

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

The difference is that had HRC acted as Trump has, we'd want her under the jail in the same way we hold that opinion about Trump. Your argument drifts into speciousness by raising hypotheticals and granting equivalence to things that are not equivalent. 

Your later statement about the poor choice of candidates between Biden and Trump needs illumination. How are they equivalent? Does either represent a threat to the election process? Which candidate could we best expect to protect the Constitution?

Serious questions.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I don't think there's anything I could say to convince you that trump did anything wrong, but I would argue that the brightest red line was crossed when they had to evacuate both chambers of congress, and when trump was ignoring their calls while they were actively under siege. 

Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them. 

I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control. 

6 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

TIL that when a violent mob storm the United States fucking Capitol in the name of, and at the behest of, a political candidate to protect his incumbency and reverse a legally-recognized election result, it is not an insurrection.

 

I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks

Posted
7 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

Please read pages 3-10. When done, I'd be interested to hear how that compares to Hillary's hypothetical statements that you assume are equal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Please read pages 3-10. When done, I'd be interested to hear how that compares to Hillary's hypothetical statements that you assume are equal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

She is on record publicly claiming Trump stole the election, that there was hacking, and voter suppression, and he's an illegitimate president. 

  • Fuck You 6
Posted
2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them. 

I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control. 

I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks

Serious question, what would qualify as an insurrection to you?

Diplomatic cables exchanged between Trump and Biden that he intended to remain in office? 

Posted

Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. 

1 minute ago, Stilicho said:

Serious question, what would qualify as an insurrection to you?

Diplomatic cables exchanged between Trump and Biden that he intended to remain in office? 

Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

She is on record publicly claiming Trump stole the election, that there was hacking, and voter suppression, and he's an illegitimate president. 

Ok. Strange then for you to say "I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair""

Which is all I was responding to.

That said, now that you've corrected the record, please read pages 3-10 and compare Trump's actions to Hillary's remarks.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, VivaNaranja said:

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. 

Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably. 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

Posted
1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

Right. She conceded the next day.

Trump

Never

Did

 

See the difference?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Quote

The next day, President Trump attempted to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Acting Attorney General, based on Mr. Clark’s statements that he would write a letter to contested states saying that the election may have been stolen and urging them to decertify electors. The White House Counsel described Mr. Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and commented “we should have nothing to do with that letter.” President Trump eventually did not promote Mr. Clark after multiple high-ranking members of the Department of Justice threatened mass resignations that would leave the Department a “graveyard.”

In the months following the election, numerous credible sources–from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership to statisticians–informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal Trump Campaign memo concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless. In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.”

Still, President Trump repeatedly urged that “the Department [of Justice] should publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable.” By early January, more than sixty court cases alleging fraud had been dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

2. Plan to disrupt electoral count

In response to alleged fraud, Dr. Eastman researched and planned a strategy for President Trump to win the election. Just after Christmas, Dr. Eastman wrote a now-public twopage memo proposing that Vice President Pence refuse to count certified electoral votes from states contested by the Trump campaign: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The memo outlines the two ways in which Dr. Eastman’s plan ensures “President Trump is re-elected.” If Vice President Pence refused to count electoral votes from all seven contested states, President Trump would win 232 votes to 222. Alternatively, if Congress claimed that a candidate could not win without reaching 270 votes, Vice President Pence could send the election to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, which would then elect President Trump. The memo emphasizes that “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.”

On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman invited Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short to the Oval Office to discuss Dr. Eastman’s memo. Dr. Eastman presented only two courses of action for the Vice President on January 6: to reject electors or delay the count. During that meeting, Vice President Pence consistently held that he did not possess the authority to carry out Dr. Eastman’s proposal. The Vice President’s counsel and chief of staff were then directed to meet separately with Dr. Eastman the next day to review materials in support of his plan. Dr. Eastman opened the meeting on January 5 bluntly: “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.”

Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob and Dr. Eastman spent the majority of the meeting in a Socratic debate on the merits of the memo’s legal arguments.  Over the course of their discussion, Dr. Eastman’s focus pivoted from requesting Vice President Pence reject the electors to asking him to delay the count, which he presented as more “palatable.” Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds. Despite receiving pushback, President Trump and Dr. Eastman continued to urge Vice President Pence to carry out the plan.

bUT hILLarY!

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Georgia

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

13 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

Right. She conceded the next day.

Trump

Never

Did

 

See the difference?

Yes. One conceded. One did not. Neither one is an insurrection. 

  • Fuck You 23
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

Yes. One conceded. One did not. Neither one is an insurrection. 

are you claiming that LBJ called a state SoS attempting to flip it when he won the election by 400+ EV's?

 

Which state? Goldwater only win six so it should be easy

Edited by VivaNaranja
Posted
16 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

And?

And that’s how it’s done when you lose a presidential election. One calls and graciously concedes.

Posted
56 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

Please provide proof of this.   Voter fraud and fake ballots are not just 'shady shit that happens all the time.   

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Still blows me away that I know for a fact that some close advisers were encouraging him to make the Georgia call but that he shouldn’t be so overtly specific. And he goes and breaks rule number one, you never ever mention specific numbers on a phone call or number.  I’ve delivered bags of cash, bribed bent politicians, and swayed union officials.  The first thing you know, as David Mamet would say, if you ever spent a day in our life…you never talk numbers until you know what the shot is.  

Posted
1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

We know Trump raped a woman. To be fair, Biden maybe one time probably thought about raping a woman, so they are both the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

Its a hundred for the plum shot 

 

IMG_0993.thumb.png.1fa7984ddc11f3be73e4dd6e45ea2dc9.png

Posted

Well to be fair to old man Biden; he was gonna rape her.  But then he forgot.  
 

and BHM, you’re correct.  I should switch to decaf.  But I need the energy because the people trying to install a dictator aren’t taking a day off so I can’t either.  

  • Like 2
Posted
34 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

 

It's typical for a sitting president to make calls telling states to find the exact number of votes that president needs to win, and to "just say you miscounted", while tossing in some vague threats about what will happen if they don't do it? 

Posted
1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

 Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

It's what people leave out that makes them bad faith operators/liars.

Compare these two scenarios:

1 -- Brisket was going to be late filing his brief with the court of appeals, which has to be filed by 5:00 pm. but through a loophole in the law, the court's clerk's office is deemed "open for filing" as long as the clerk is physically in the office, so because the clerk was still in his office at 8:00 pm, Brisket did nothing wrong by filing his brief at 8:00.

2 -- Brisket was going to be late filing his brief with the court of appeals, which has to be filed by 5:00 pm. but through a loophole in the law, the court's clerk's office is deemed "open for filing" as long as the clerk is physically in the office, so because the clerk was still in his office at 8:00 pm...because Brisket urged his supporters to storm the clerk's office, and hold the clerk at gunpoint so he couldn't leave.... Brisket did nothing wrong by filing his brief at 8:00.

It's the part that BHM leaves out that tells you he isn't arguing in good faith.  A violent attack on the capitol offered the opportunity, if a bad actor cooperated with it and took advantage of it, to delay and possibly kill the vote certification.  Trump, given the CLEAR AND BINARY OPTION of 1) exercise his authority as the executive to take action to stop the insurrection, or 2) functionally join in the insurrection to further his interest as a candidate to kill a vote certification that would have ended his bid for office, he unambiguously and enthusiastically chose option 2.  Joining in and coopting the use of force to your advantage is legally, morally, ethically, and practically identical to using the force yourself.  "Go shoot that guy so I can get some advantage" and then taking advantage when your request is followed is no different than shooting the guy yourself.

But BHM isn't interested in a good-faith analysis.  He wants to both-sides it because some other candidates have filed legal challenges in the past.  What he won't cite for you is a single fucking candidate who SIDED WITH AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF AN ONGOING VIOLENT INSURRECTION to do so.  Because it has never happened before.  Ever.  What Trump did was disastrously unprecedented and, by my prediction, it will ultimately kill the country.  He set the precedent that the peaceful transfer of power is no longer the order of the day.  Every election from now on will offer the option of a violent refusal to accept it.  You can't shove that demon back in the box.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

It's been interesting to see the random red hats from DT make their way over this week.  Guessing it will become more common as we get towards November.  Of course, they won't stick around long because they repeatedly get pantsed and then go back and cry to their fellow cult members and the moderators.

  • Like 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Can't wait for imma to scold meanie CR posters for this one too

I’m about to ban @BHMCruiser actually. Also people aren’t dog piling they are giving clear, pointed and not even really flame filled rebuttals to nonsensical trolling. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1


×
×
  • Create New...