|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9221 total) |
| |
danieljones0094 | |
Total: 920,790 Year: 1,112/6,935 Month: 393/719 Week: 35/146 Day: 8/8 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Just curious:
Did you actually read the speech? I can believe you did, and can believe you did not. I understand typical human mindsets, so I can easily believe you did. I am just wondering what the exact mindset is that I am dealing with here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: |
Pretty amusing that Taq, you ( AzPaul), and Tanypteryx used Liz Cheney's impeachment quote as some sort of example of evidence that Trump was guilty of insurrection. See post 17 and the next 10. You really are a fucking lying sack of shit just like your fucking hero.
I am sorry to have to admit that I was posting on my own ignorance combined with intuition That's obvious.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
What was post 17 then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
I remember when you and me went over this issue of post 17 (and 21) before.
You said it was nothing you said, and I accepted it AT THE TIME. But there was something I just noticed: You clicked on the agreement disc for post 17. Taq posted it but you agreed.Ironic. So YOU are the dishonest pile of 'xxx Ironically... Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined:
|
I never quoted Liz Cheney.
And you have no idea why I clicked the cheer button.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
My whole point from the start involved my opposition to a political trial, among other things?
Liz Cheney voted for impeachment because she was a major target in Trump's Jan6 call to March. No Democrats were not a target, just Republicans like her. For purely political reasons, Cheney voted for impeachment, and her reasons were a case of pure dishonesty (based on the quote I saw, though perhaps there were other reasons) Democrats were not a target(or they weren't supposed to be the politicians to convince during the march)of the Jan 6 call to march speech , but all House Democrats voted for impeachment (10 Republicans did). Why? Political reasons. The Jan 6 call to march speech is NOT a reason for any sort of rational impeachment and/or conviction. It is pure politics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3978 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined:
|
My recollection (and I may be very wrong) is that LamarkNewAge is a butt hurt Bernie baby, angry about the Democratic party in that Bernie was not the candidate, and is thus not now the President.
The Bernie babies think that Bernie is some sort of a miracle worker. Just by his presence as President, all good things will happen My impression (again, I may be very wrong) is that LamarkNewAge is acting out the "the enemy (Trump, Republicans) of my enemy (Democrats) is my friend" mentality. No, the Democrats are not (just) politically motivated to impeach Trump. They are motivated to impeach Trump because Trump deserved impeachment. The ones who are purely politically motivated are the Republicans, who won't impeach Trump because he is part of the Republican party, and sadly seems to control the mentality of the Republican party. They are afraid to resist the stupidity. Liz Cheney just reached the point of "if Trump isn't going to be loyal to her, why should she remain loyal to him?". 2 years ago (and this past election?), the Republicans who showed the most spine were the ones who did not seek reelection/retired. I call them the "I'd rather quit than fight" branch of the Republican party. Oh yeah, there's that one representitive (good ol' what's his name) who went from Republican to Independent. Heck of a fight there. Or something like that. Moose Edited by Minnemooseus, : Extremely minor tweak.Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Kenneth Galbraith It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn't know what he was talking about. - Paul Krugman (as stolen from Chiroptera's signature) "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes" - Ronald Reagan (1984) "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 400 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
It is pure politics. Voting along party lines is pure politics. Voting against party lines is pure principle.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8716 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Did you actually read the speech? I not only read every word of the speech as posted by Percy, I streamed it live real-time. Heard/watched every word, every inflection, every nuance of speech you can not get in a transcript. You can't see the crime because you don't want to see the crime. Your cheeto is toast.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
Make a case for a position you disagree with.
I am going to ask the posters here to make a case that the Jan 6 speech is not a criminal act. I can easily find ONE reason for it to be a criminal act: But it would require Al Gore's opinion to carry legal weight. The Al Gore Standard was not stated until around 2006, if I recall correctly. He said there was no intermediate step, after a final Supreme Court decision, between the candidate calling an election stolen, and the resulting violent revolution. So the very act of calling an election "stolen", on Jan 6, the day of the Electoral College vote,, is thus a call for arms. Thus criminal. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 166 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
You really are an idiot!
The January 6th speech was simply the last example of the same rhetoric and criminal behavior exhibited by Donald Trump since even before he was elected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
You know that I am REALLY getting stupid desperate, when the (temporary?) lack of critical thinking - almost an environmental condition - causes me to whip out the old homework assignment.
You beat me to the punch. Yes: ( You idiot, LNA) I don't have much hope for humanity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23191 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
LamarkNewAge writes: Percy, my reading of the immediate context, in your quote, requires me to reach an interpretation that Trump sent people to protest and it was 100% aimed at the Republican congressional members. Trump told the protesters to completely avoid the Democrats. Your claim that I quote Trump targeting Republicans and not Democrats makes no sense because he never mentions either one, neither in the quote or in any sentence nearby. Given that your post begins in this contrafactual way and then builds off it I can offer no response to most of it. I'll reply to stuff I can make sense of.
When he uses terms like "give our party members the strength", it is a common rhetorical idiom used to describe a massive show of the population backing a cause and it is meant to be something that creates wider popular support ( which a riot and break in would not), or at least an illusion of (in this case)national support, for a position. This is self-evidently wrong. What Trump actually said was:
quote: And if you ask the rioters, they believe they were doing what Trump told them to do. That's why they documented their rioting, because they believed it was sanctioned by Trump and that they were doing nothing wrong. That's why the Proud Boys are so upset, because Trump didn't grant pardons to those arrested for what they believed Trump told them to do.
The 'fighting", "fight", and "fighter" metaphors are so common in a political context, that the words use themselves should automatically be considered to be about a peaceful use of democratic process powers(absent anything in the context that would indicate forceful physical activity against a person or property).It would never be interpreted as an act of illegal physical activity if not for the high-stakes partisan political spin & posturing. Again, the rioters have posted on social media, told the press, and told law enforcement after their arrest, that they believed they were doing what the president told them to do. Obviously you're making a post facto apologist's interpretation of Trump's words that was not considered by the people who were actually at the rally before marching to the Capitol building. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2497 Joined: |
You offered a quote, in your post yesterday, that was very much near the end of his speech.
39 words after your quote ended, he offered a sentence (if not his ultimate sentence, it was his penultimate or propenultimate sentence) that stated his reason for the march. You had it highlighted in yellow. It was about who to target. And why. It fit in perfectly with several other major parts of his speech. It was about ignoring Democrats and convincing Republicans. It was an attack on "WEAK" Republicans. Only 38 minor words separated his closing reasons for the march, AND YOUR LONE QUOTE in yesterday's post. Post 45 or 46. Right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23191 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
LamarkNewAge writes: His Jan 6 speech could be described as an insurrection ( again, don't take that literally. Lol) call toward, NOT THE CAPITAL, but Republican primary polling booths. It's "Capitol". Sticking to the facts, only 20 words of Trump's nearly 11,000 word rally speech mention opposing "weak" Republicans in primaries:
quote: He was still in a mode of operation that was devoted to laying groundwork that would be the stage for future GOP civil wars. If you think that beyond those 20 words I quoted above that Trump's January 6th speech was about future Republican primaries then where are the other words in his speech arguing this?
His Jan 6 speech was actually a Fuck The Non Trump Republicans speech... Trump's speech was against all who opposed him regardless of party affiliation, but he did correctly conclude that no Democrats would oppose electoral college certification and that they needed to encourage more Republicans to vote against it:
quote: As for possible before-the-fact prognostications about a Jan 6 break in, I admit that I have not one but of awareness of any such thing. You should probably look into this if you want to contribute knowledgably. The Internet planning for insurrection at the Capitol building was in plain sight, which is why law enforcement is receiving so much criticism for not beefing up security. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025