Pelosi Took responsibility for Jan. 6th

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-12-2024, 10:59 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: For the majority of people at both? To peacefully organize a protest to make their voices be heard in a Constitutionally protected manner.

Once you start breaking it down further than that, you start deciding both who and what ideas/thoughts are allowed and it's a bad road to head down. Said the same in the thread about the college Gaza protests. I don't agree with them and I think those kids are largely dumb as hell and probably at least a little anti-Semitic, but you can't just ban people from protesting because you don't like them or because other smaller groups of people mixed in with bad intentions.

You can absolutely intervene to stop the violence and get things back to a peaceful state when they stop being peaceful, but either we all get free speech or there's no such thing as free speech. That's the downside of the protected freedoms we have, but it's a downside worth paying when looking at the alternative.

What do you think “Stop the Steal” meant?

When it comes to right and wrong, what’s your conscience say?
What’s worse? A president lying to his followers in a manner that convinces them to commit acts of treason? Or a nationwide protest over multiple instances of police brutality with the straw that broke the camels back being multiple police officers on top of a guy as he slowly died in front of the crowd begging them to stop?

I’m not telling anybody they can’t protest or what they can or can not think. I’m asking if people can tell the difference between right and wrong anymore? Because they sure don’t act like it.

[*pally*]

(06-12-2024, 07:55 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: One thing some might considered as rigged in Biden's favor was the nation wide changes in election protocol than did not follow the Constitution, due to the pandemic occurring.

I always found it odd that this was never addressed and just widely accepted.

Even more odd that there was no corrective action taken to prevent such issues in the future.

Anything that was changed to deal with COVID was equally applied. Every single voter in each and every state ha d equal access to the ballot. Neither side was an advantaged neither side was disadvantaged. The same rules applied to both sides. The difference was that one side encouraged all their voters to use whichever method worked best for them and the other pushed one method only.

Trump did try to challenge some changes approved in Pennsylvania after he lost there..he lost those challenges.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-12-2024, 04:18 PM)hollodero Wrote: Which is an idea that Donald Trump put in their head, falsely, since there is no evidence the election was actually rigged in Biden's favor. I can not possibly declare Trump free of guilt for so intensely propagating that lie. And all these people were sent by him, they all were convinced that they were acting on Trump's behalf and acting on his wishes. Had he made it clear that violence and storming the Capitol was not in his interest, immediately after the violence unfolded, it possibly would have gone a long way to end it way sooner. At the very least, he should have tried and failing to do so makes him morally guilty in my book.



Well, I don't really think so, but I can't really prove otherwise in a way that you would be convinced. Admittedly, I generally have a hard time imagining how good people march alongside proud boys, oathkeepers and the like - who mostly were not disguised in any way, but showed openly what kind of people they were. To me it's similar to the whole Charlottesville situation, where allegedly good people marched alongside Nazis who shouted Nazi things. Imho, that just is not what good people do.
Btw. this answer is not meant to be confrontational. I am aware that everyone here opposes violence.

Al Sharpton and several others have been getting away with inciting riots for years. Al even used Anti-Semantic lies to get people to riot against innocents. Never once charged.

In this case though, i have brought up the 10k requested previously and several of you blew it off. 

[*pally*]

(06-13-2024, 02:37 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Al Sharpton and several others have been getting away with inciting riots for years. Al even used Anti-Semantic lies to get people to riot against innocents. Never once charged.

In this case though, i have brought up the 10k requested previously and several of you blew it off. 

Because, Trump claiming he wanted 10k national guardsmen is a moot point. The FACT is that he didn’t call them up. The buck stops at his desk. If he thought they were needed and didn’t call them up that’s a failure on his part no one else’s. It was his failure on delaying their activation once it was clear the police were overwhelmed.

Trump was the only person who could activate the guard in advance…and he didn’t. Everything else is just noise trying to redirect the responsibility

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 02:37 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Al Sharpton and several others have been getting away with inciting riots for years. Al even used Anti-Semantic lies to get people to riot against innocents. Never once charged.

I don't really know about all that, but let's just assume you're right. Then your moral judgment about what Mr. Sharpton did understandably is clear. It's about that, not about him or Trump being charged, that's a different discussion. I for one was talking about Trump's moral guilt, and when it comes to that it seems you're the one making a difference between Sharpton and Trump.

Btw. Mr. Sharpton ran for president and got about 2.3% in the primaries. Man I would be so happy if the same result had happened to Trump.

(06-13-2024, 02:37 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In this case though, i have brought up the 10k requested previously and several of you blew it off. 

I didn't. I thought it to be of limited relevance though.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-13-2024, 01:10 AM)pally Wrote: Anything that was changed to deal with COVID was equally applied.  Every single voter in each and every state ha d equal access to the ballot. Neither side was an advantaged neither side was disadvantaged.  The same rules applied to both sides. The difference was that one side encouraged all their voters to use whichever method worked best for them and the other pushed one method only.

Trump did try to challenge some changes approved in Pennsylvania after he lost there..he lost those challenges.

Just because it was equally applied does not mean it is necessarily fair or had no impact on the election results.

[*pally*]

(06-13-2024, 07:17 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Just because it was equally applied does not mean it is necessarily fair or had no impact on the election results.

Allowing people to vote always impacts the election results. The point is both sides had equal opportunities for that to happen thus no harm no foul.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-13-2024, 05:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't really know about all that, but let's just assume you're right. Then your moral judgment about what Mr. Sharpton did understandably is clear. It's about that, not about him or Trump being charged, that's a different discussion. I for one was talking about Trump's moral guilt, and when it comes to that it seems you're the one making a difference between Sharpton and Trump.

Btw. Mr. Sharpton ran for president and got about 2.3% in the primaries. Man I would be so happy if the same result had happened to Trump.

Like Al, and years later he actually admitted he did it intentionally, we also have the Extremist Leaders from Hamas groups on college campuses doing the same thing. Inciting riots and violence against other Jews and destroying college campuses. I just don't want this thread to devolve into an argument over that. We already have one for it.

Morally? Ofc he had a small part in that. Some think he should be charged for inciting the riot, my point is that if we aren't chasing others then chasing him just makes it look political all over again. 

Now, people trying to say he wanted the 10k there to protect his people, but define who is people is? The Maga's that showed up and protested peacefully or the Extremists that showed up causing trouble? If those Guards has been there, this likely never would have happened. 

Now his rant about Pelosi rejecting his demand for the additional 10k troops makes some sense, you know they thought it would be a bad optic to have them on hand... it's on them for that as well. 

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 10:00 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Like Al, and years later he actually admitted he did it intentionally, we also have the Extremist Leaders from Hamas groups on college campuses doing the same thing. Inciting riots and violence against other Jews and destroying college campuses. I just don't want this thread to devolve into an argument over that. We already have one for it.

You won't get much argument from me on that anyway.

(06-13-2024, 10:00 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Morally? Ofc he had a small part in that. Some think he should be charged for inciting the riot, my point is that if we aren't chasing others then chasing him just makes it look political all over again.

Well, I don't know about charging him over that, I did not demand that. My issue is his moral responsibility and the question whether a person acting in this manner is qualified for the highest office in the land, which, big secret, in my view he is certainly not. Most likely the same would hold true for Al Sharpton or people that incite antisemitic riots. Thankfully the latter don't run.

(06-13-2024, 10:00 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now, people trying to say he wanted the 10k there to protect his people, but define who is people is? The Maga's that showed up and protested peacefully or the Extremists that showed up causing trouble?

I don't know whom Trump had in mind. In any case, even if the most harmless interpretation is true: One does not send 10.000 troops to the capital for the explicit purpose to protect pro-president protesters. Protect them from what? Only viable answer could be "from themselves", but that was not what was in his mind.
But just imagine. A protest in favor of the sitting president, surrounded by 10.000 military men that are sent to the capitol by said president in their support, while they are protesting the certification of an unvaforable, but fair election. Quite the spooky picture, to me at least, bad optics indeed. It's quite clear to me why no one is signing up for that. Had Trump said that it's the Capitol that needs protecting, your point would be a more viable one. But that is not what he did and I find it misleading to treat it as if it was.

That is not to say that folks like Pelosi are unblemished. Quite possibly they underestimated the threat.


Now lastly, maybe a small thought experiment - imagine if Biden loses the 2024 election fair and square and then acts in the same manner... calling the election rigged with zero proof, claiming he actually won in a landslide, peddling all kind of absurd conspiracy stories, slandering election workers that then have to fear for their life, commissioning "alternate electors" that should ignore the results in their state, demanding Kamala does not certify the result, calling folks to find him votes, encouraging his supporters to go to Washington in protest and then order 10.000 troops there as well to protect "his people" that include Antifas and whatnot, watching them break into the Capitol and doing nothing about it except further fending the flames with tweets, and after all is said and done saying how he loves these people and calling them heroes and patriots. How would you feel if that all unfolded as described?
And a small nod to the threat subject, would you really focus on laying blame on Mike Johnson?

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 08:32 PM)hollodero Wrote: Alright, I honestly do not know enough about how elections are addressed in the constitution to make this determination. Mail-in ballots and the like don't seem to be unconstitutional, but maybe some things can be seen that way. The main point I would make is that Trump did not focus on this. He was talking about ballots being thrown in rivers, about millions of illegals voting, voters being carried around in buses to vote illegally in different states, dead people voting, fraudulent election workers taking in fake ballots, corrupt state secretaries being in on it, corrupt judges affirming the fraudulent results, mysterious votes appearing, these kind of things. Not so much 'changes in election protocol', which putting all maybe legitimate critizisms aside still did not lead to a credible and provable case of actual wide-spread and systematic voter fraud taking place.

Of course not to mention that being dissatisfied with election protocol does not justify one bit to storm the capitol, or run fake elector schemes, or pressuring state secretaries to find the exact number of votes to overthrow the result.

PS I always agreed with conservatives on things like the voter ID issue, so it's not like I see your system as perfectly legit in the first place. It's just, you have to back up voter fraud claims nonetheless or else you have no business making such claims.

I agree that his arguments about the implied election fraud were all over the place and unfocused. He was committing the same error the far left is making when accusing him of things and the lawfare. Everything is being thrown at him so they come off as lunatics and just hoping for something to stick. The majority of citizen do not take it seriously and it doesn't move the needle, except in making the left look looney as DJT was desperate to find any sort of election fraud.

I think there were definitely things that impacted the election results, as we learn of with the manipulations of Twitter, Facebook, and suppressing the Hunter laptop story (which 10% of Biden voters admitted would have changed their votes if they knew the laptop was indeed legit). But that is the past. The country needs to learn from it, and fix it in  the future.

I agree voter ID laws need to tighten up, and I question the motives of those who do not want increased security at the ballot box.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-13-2024, 10:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: You won't get much argument from me on that anyway.



Well, I don't know about charging him over that, I did not demand that. My issue is his moral responsibility and the question whether a person acting in this manner is qualified for the highest office in the land, which, big secret, in my view he is certainly not. Most likely the same would hold true for Al Sharpton or people that incite antisemitic riots. Thankfully the latter don't run.



I don't know whom Trump had in mind. In any case, even if the most harmless interpretation is true: One does not send 10.000 troops to the capital for the explicit purpose to protect pro-president protesters. Protect them from what? Only viable answer could be "from themselves", but that was not what was in his mind.
But just imagine. A protest in favor of the sitting president, surrounded by 10.000 military men that are sent to the capitol by said president in their support, while they are protesting the certification of an unvaforable, but fair election. Quite the spooky picture, to me at least, bad optics indeed. It's quite clear to me why no one is signing up for that. Had Trump said that it's the Capitol that needs protecting, your point would be a more viable one. But that is not what he did and I find it misleading to treat it as if it was.

That is not to say that folks like Pelosi are unblemished. Quite possibly they underestimated the threat.


Now lastly, maybe a small thought experiment - imagine if Biden loses the 2024 election fair and square and then acts in the same manner... calling the election rigged with zero proof, claiming he actually won in a landslide, peddling all kind of absurd conspiracy stories, slandering election workers that then have to fear for their life, commissioning "alternate electors" that should ignore the results in their state, demanding Kamala does not certify the result, calling folks to find him votes, encouraging his supporters to go to Washington in protest and then order 10.000 troops there as well to protect "his people" that include Antifas and whatnot, watching them break into the Capitol and doing nothing about it except further fending the flames with tweets, and after all is said and done saying how he loves these people and calling them heroes and patriots. How would you feel if that all unfolded as described?
And a small nod to the threat subject, would you really focus on laying blame on Mike Johnson?

He also said the Bolded. 

Now i will admit the fake electors thing was pretty stupid. And at the time, he probably believed there was voting fraud and the actions there are on him.

You want to do some if's but what if it was right a? Would he then be the savior of Democracy? 

If the Dems do the same, it will just be Politics as usual, get the media to blame the R's and then they are the saviors of Democracy. 

[*pally*]

(06-13-2024, 10:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He also said the Bolded. 

Now i will admit the fake electors thing was pretty stupid. And at the time, he probably believed there was voting fraud and the actions there are on him.

You want to do some if's but what if it was right a? Would he then be the savior of Democracy? 

If the Dems do the same, it will just be Politics as usual, get the media to blame the R's and then they are the saviors of Democracy. 

By the time the fake elector scheme came along, he had already been told by numerous people, including Bill Barr, that there was no fraud.  He had lost in every court challenge and recount.  If he honestly still believed he won, it is time to question how in touch with reality he is

The way to battle perceived illegal actions is not with more illegal actions.  It would had made his 2nd term as illegitimate as he thought Biden's was

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 10:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: He also said the Bolded. 

He did? I saw nothing but protection of the protesters as motive in Mr. Millers testimony, but maybe I overlooked it. I also saw no explicit mention of protecting the capitol in Mr. Ornato's testimony (which might be seen as hearsay anyway). The way I see it, the focus was on protecting his people and if it also was about protecting the Capitol (again, maybe I overlooked something) then it sure seems like an afterthought.

(06-13-2024, 10:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You want to do some if's but what if it was right a? Would he then be the savior of Democracy? 

If the Dems do the same, it will just be Politics as usual, get the media to blame the R's and then they are the saviors of Democracy. 

Well, if there was actually wide spread voter fraud the picture might be different - but fact is that there was not. "He believed it anyway" imho is a bad excuse, because then at best he is delusional to a point where he can not perceive reality, and this might not be less dangerous for a president.
Now I do not believe that Dems would do the same were the roles reversed, but apparently I can not prove that. However, I did not ask what you think Dems would do. I asked what YOU would think.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-13-2024, 11:06 AM)pally Wrote: By the time the fake elector scheme came along, he had already been told by numerous people, including Bill Barr, that there was no fraud.  He had lost in every court challenge and recount.  If he honestly still believed he won, it is time to question how in touch with reality he is

The way to battle perceived illegal actions is not with more illegal actions.  It would had made his 2nd term as illegitimate as he thought Biden's was

Didn't ask that question, but thanks for your input.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 10:51 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I agree that his arguments about the implied election fraud were all over the place and unfocused. He was committing the same error the far left is making when accusing him of things and the lawfare. Everything is being thrown at him so they come off as lunatics and just hoping for something to stick. The majority of citizen do not take it seriously and it doesn't move the needle, except in making the left look looney as DJT was desperate to find any sort of election fraud.

I think there were definitely things that impacted the election results, as we learn of with the manipulations of Twitter, Facebook, and suppressing the Hunter laptop story (which 10% of Biden voters admitted would have changed their votes if they knew the laptop was indeed legit). But that is the past. The country needs to learn from it, and fix it in  the future.

I agree voter ID laws need to tighten up, and I question the motives of those who do not want increased security at the ballot box.

Well, in all honesty. I think both parties thrive for election rules that favor them. In general, dems want a high turnout and maybe are willing to change in some security concerns to achieve that goal (I personally think it's about that and not about easing actual fraud, but well what do I know). Republicans want lower turnouts, and so they oppose mail-in or insist on things like voting on a workday or having too few polling locations in certain areas so that people have to wait in line for hours. And both parties do plenty of gerrymandering. It's all a huge mess and I find it difficult to solely blame one party.

Nothing is an excuse to claim widespread fraud and actually having won in a landslide though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-13-2024, 11:06 AM)hollodero Wrote: He did? I saw nothing but protection of the protesters as motive in Mr. Millers testimony, but maybe I overlooked it. I also saw no explicit mention of protecting the capitol in Mr. Ornato's testimony (which might be seen as hearsay anyway). The way I see it, the focus was on protecting his people and if it also was about protecting the Capitol (again, maybe I overlooked something) then it sure seems like an afterthought.



Well, if there was actually wide spread voter fraud the picture might be different - but fact is that there was not. "He believed it anyway" imho is a bad excuse, because then at best he is delusional to a point where he can not perceive reality, and this might not be less dangerous for a president.
Now I do not believe that Dems would do the same were the roles reversed, but apparently I can not prove that. However, I did not ask what you think Dems would do. I asked what YOU would think.

 
I think it would be stupid, but Politics as usual and blame the R's.

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 11:16 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  
I think it would be stupid, but Politics as usual and blame the R's.

Well ok. Honestly, I would have thought you'd be appalled by Biden in that scenario. And well, secretly I still think you would be. But I take "stupid" too.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-13-2024, 11:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, in all honesty. I think both parties thrive for election rules that favor them. In general, dems want a high turnout and maybe are willing to change in some security concerns to achieve that goal (I personally think it's about that and not about easing actual fraud, but well what do I know). Republicans want lower turnouts, and so they oppose mail-in or insist on things like voting on a workday or having too few polling locations in certain areas so that people have to wait in line for hours. And both parties do plenty of gerrymandering. It's all a huge mess and I find it difficult to solely blame one party.

I would guess the republicans are against mail in voting because there are potential fraud issues and their base is more traditional and are more likely to show up and vote than the democrat base.

I think the democrats favor it because they can muster more votes because their base is less likely to make the effort to vote, and some shenanigans may ensue. Especially since mail in ballots can be spammed out to the populace, making potential fraud more possible.

But yes, both sides favor rules that favor their party.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-13-2024, 11:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, in all honesty. I think both parties thrive for election rules that favor them. In general, dems want a high turnout and maybe are willing to change in some security concerns to achieve that goal (I personally think it's about that and not about easing actual fraud, but well what do I know). Republicans want lower turnouts, and so they oppose mail-in or insist on things like voting on a workday or having too few polling locations in certain areas so that people have to wait in line for hours. And both parties do plenty of gerrymandering. It's all a huge mess and I find it difficult to solely blame one party.

That's just speculation?
I personally don't believe much in that, but ballot stuffing is not a good thing, why can't they let the people fill them out, then mail them in? That way their hands are directly involved? It's like Oh no, we are losing, guess i better go get those ballots i saved for emergencies. 

Well according to Dems. the common man votes R, so having votes on Working days wouldn't be so ideal for the R's. 

Now I would really want everyone to have an ID in order to vote. Never understood why we don't, when it's very common in other developed countries. 

[hollodero]

(06-13-2024, 11:22 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I would guess the republicans are against mail in voting because there are potential fraud issues and their base is more traditional and are more likely to show up and vote than the democrat base.

I think the democrats favor it because they can muster more votes because their base is less likely to make the effort to vote, and some shenanigans may ensue. Especially since mail in ballots can be spammed out to the populace, making potential fraud more possible.

But yes, both sides favor rules that favor their party.

I don't really concur with the assumption that democrats factor in possible fraud in their thought process. I see no actual evidence that their supporters are more prone to trying shenanigans. Of all the few fraud cases that get revealed, it doesn't seem as if democrats are the major culprits. If any, it's more often republican supporters that get caught (by that I am not saying they are generally more prone to fraud either). So to declare possible fraud in their favor a motive is a step too far for me, I agree with the rest.