quote:

Originally posted by MLindsay:
I completely agree with your last statement

quote:

Originally posted by MLindsay:
No I was confused. I believe some of the rioters were there to stop the proceedings but they had little chance and no one has explained if the vote count was stopped that day what prevented the count to continue the day after. I am unsure how many of the thousands that were at the rally were in anyway involved. I believe the rioters should have been beaten with batons and not allowed in the building.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
Doc, while the sit in, was an unlawful act. I see it differently. To me, anytime they( both parties) are pulling crap like that, they are not spending money.
But I do see you point. I like things boiled down to just facts. If there is any outrage, I will have it myself after knowing what all rules, laws and issues were, involved.
I feel, jeffe, is much the same. I have asked questions via pm with jeffe. It always comes back as clean and precise answers, with " my opinion" when it is an opinion.
I do have issues with the steve's, who tell me what I'm thinking, or changes things to his narrative. I remember well, what steve is complaining about with the BP whipping migrants.
I was fed up with him telling everyone(and me) what they mean. I thought, hmmm, lets see if he likes it.
He didnt like it, nor did he change his behavior, he still does it.
If I dont follow the path someone is on in a post, I ask, as I have done with you at times doc.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The unabomber was violent.

The PR violence was violent.

I don’t know that I would go so far as Trump orchestrated the violence. Rather, he didn’t do what his oath demanded of him, stop the attempts to interfere.

The left supporters here have fairly consistently brought up US code and “seditious conspiracy” re 1/6.

The sit ins certainly meet that requirement. Ummmm.....No. A sit in is a form of protest, not an attempt to steal an election through force. Any honest person can see the difference.

The unabomber and others have met the violent part as well.

What is different is that a sitting (even if lame duck) POTUS didn’t step out and say this is bad.

Trump’s damnation isn’t his acts… it’s is inaction where it was appropriate. Are you sure about that? Sending fake electors to Congress? Calling Raffensperger on the "perfect phone" and asking him to find 11,870 votes? O'll be a hard disagree on this one, it was most certainly Trump's actions in an attempt to steal the 2020 election that are his damnation. Among many other things.

IIRC, SCOTUS at some point in time said outright lying in political speech is protected.


I get where folks come from in that they claim supporting a bad actor that states he will do what you think is better is a better choice than a (subjectively) less mendacious politician who states his goal is antithetical to yours… I just feel that neither one is likely to give you a good outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

I was not making a comparison to the Floyd riots.

Again, for the reasons listed and more I consider the Jan 6 worse, but bad.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
I fail to see how a street riot compares to an insurrection against the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

I was not making a comparison to the Floyd riots.

Again, for the reasons listed and more I consider the Jan 6 worse, but bad.

Fair, would you agree the Floyd riots were violent?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

I was not making a comparison to the Floyd riots.

Again, for the reasons listed and more I consider the Jan 6 worse, but bad.

Fair, would you agree the Floyd riots were violent?

By definition, a riot is violent. A set in is a form of nonviolent protest.

Thus, some of the Floyd demonstrations turned violent. Those who so engaged should be prosecuted and engaged by law enforcement while doing violence.

Bad, not Jan 6 bad.

See MM, Roland, my post above, and countless others why the comparison does not carry water.

The main difference and why Jan 6 is worse is because it was created from and tolerated by a setting, but duly defeated president. The goal being to allow that president to retain power he has no right to under the Constitution.

The peaceful transition of power, the Constitution, and our government was sacrificed by the the Right at the behest of lies to keep President Trump in power.

This has not happened until the election of President Lincoln and has not happened since.

As I have pointed out President Trump had an obligation to engage the public like Sl Gore did after losing in the courts. Had he done that, Jan 6 does not happen. In the face of the attack on the Capitol he, as Commander snd Chief with sole authority over the DC Gusrd, was required to stop the attack and protect my Government, my Election, my Constitution. He chose not to do so because he thought the violence would force the VO to unconditionally decertify the election. This would result in him keeping power.

President Trump then calls for the Constitution to be suspended, and his immediate reinstatement when the violence he courted failed to keep in power.

No, sir. President Biden is not the Ann e. The Left did not range in the above. In fact, VP Biden and President Alabama specifically spoke down movements to deny President Elect Trump the White House. Transitioning the government to him when others called for the election to be delivered to someone else.

Those that call President Trump and Jan 6 actors patriots would be calling for 2nd Amendment remedies had President Obama engaged in President Trump’s behavior leading the Left to use mob violence to prevent transition to President Trump.

One can disagree with President Biden’s policy all they want. Fair or unfair policy critique is immaterial to this discussion. It is his policy to make. Bad policy is not the above.

quote:

As to bad policy, that is what Trump did... He elected to let the regular capitol police force, the SS around Pence, and the DC police force handle the situation, which they did... maybe not as well as could be hoped, but what does one expect after about a year of "defund the police" and hands off lawbreakers policies? He didn't call out the DC guard to support the rioters or start a real insurrection (which we all know would have been turned down and had him under military arrest).

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

I was not making a comparison to the Floyd riots.

Again, for the reasons listed and more I consider the Jan 6 worse, but bad.

Fair, would you agree the Floyd riots were violent?

By definition, a riot is violent. A set in is a form of nonviolent protest.

Thus, some of the Floyd demonstrations turned violent. Those who so engaged should be prosecuted and engaged by law enforcement while doing violence.

Bad, not Jan 6 bad.

See MM, Roland, my post above, and countless others why the comparison does not carry water.

The main difference and why Jan 6 is worse is because it was created from and tolerated by a setting, but duly defeated president. The goal being to allow that president to retain power he has no right to under the Constitution.

The peaceful transition of power, the Constitution, and our government was sacrificed by the the Right at the behest of lies to keep President Trump in power.

This has not happened until the election of President Lincoln and has not happened since.

As I have pointed out President Trump had an obligation to engage the public like Sl Gore did after losing in the courts. Had he done that, Jan 6 does not happen. In the face of the attack on the Capitol he, as Commander snd Chief with sole authority over the DC Gusrd, was required to stop the attack and protect my Government, my Election, my Constitution. He chose not to do so because he thought the violence would force the VO to unconditionally decertify the election. This would result in him keeping power.

President Trump then calls for the Constitution to be suspended, and his immediate reinstatement when the violence he courted failed to keep in power.

No, sir. President Biden is not the Ann e. The Left did not range in the above. In fact, VP Biden and President Alabama specifically spoke down movements to deny President Elect Trump the White House. Transitioning the government to him when others called for the election to be delivered to someone else.

Those that call President Trump and Jan 6 actors patriots would be calling for 2nd Amendment remedies had President Obama engaged in President Trump’s behavior leading the Left to use mob violence to prevent transition to President Trump.

One can disagree with President Biden’s policy all they want. Fair or unfair policy critique is immaterial to this discussion. It is his policy to make. Bad policy is not the above.

A lot of this needs translation.

Where does seditious conspiracy require violence?

I get that the methods were worse and Trump by virtue of being president was supposed to carry out the oath of office and do everything to prevent what happened from happening at the capitol.

I think you give Trump too much credit for some of this. I don't even think he's capable of playing checkers, let alone chess.

Biden the Ann E? Ann Landers? WTF?
The left did not range in the above?

Trump may be the commander in chief while president, and he had wide ranging authority, but the civil control of the guard means he does not have sole control, and in fact unless they nationalize the guard, he doesn't have "sole control" of the guard.

Who the sam hill is president alabama? Are you talking about that SOS that Trump tried to convince to find some votes?

As to bad policy, that is what Trump did... He elected to let the regular capitol police force, the SS around Pence, and the DC police force handle the situation, which they did... maybe not as well as could be hoped, but what does one expect after about a year of "defund the police" and hands off lawbreakers policies? He didn't call out the DC guard to support the rioters or start a real insurrection (which we all know would have been turned down and had him under military arrest).

Gore at least got his time in court. To his credit, once he lost, he gave it up, although we certainly heard, and still hear folks complaining that the court was wrong and he was rightfully president even on this website.

Trump never even got that far... because they did not produce actual evidence of what he claimed was happening, even though he claimed he had it.

We are still waiting for the evidence "any day now"...

Because the courts can't/won't enforce truthfulness on politicians and political promises.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by zebrazapper:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Differences w distinction:

1) 1 was violent,
2) 1 was motivated by the lies of a duly defeated President with that President having the intent to keep power,
3) 1 saw a duly defeated President use that violence to pressure his VP into unconstitutionally decertifying the election. This that duly defeated President keeping power,
And
4) 1 was specifically designed to prevent the peaceful transition of power for one government, one administration, to the next.

The above are objective distinctions of worse.

Prosecuting and removing set In protesters at Capitol buildings does not hurt my conscience. So as such prosecutions are snatched in actual disruptive conduct and not expressions of speech the legislature does not like or finds inconvenient.

One could protest a vote at the Capitol and be protected by the 1st Amendment. The matter is a fact issue that turns on conduct.

The Floyd riots were not violent?

I was not making a comparison to the Floyd riots.

Again, for the reasons listed and more I consider the Jan 6 worse, but bad.

Fair, would you agree the Floyd riots were violent?

By definition, a riot is violent. A set in is a form of nonviolent protest.

Thus, some of the Floyd demonstrations turned violent. Those who so engaged should be prosecuted and engaged by law enforcement while doing violence.

Bad, not Jan 6 bad.

See MM, Roland, my post above, and countless others why the comparison does not carry water.

The main difference and why Jan 6 is worse is because it was created from and tolerated by a setting, but duly defeated president. The goal being to allow that president to retain power he has no right to under the Constitution.

The peaceful transition of power, the Constitution, and our government was sacrificed by the the Right at the behest of lies to keep President Trump in power.

This has not happened until the election of President Lincoln and has not happened since.

As I have pointed out President Trump had an obligation to engage the public like Sl Gore did after losing in the courts. Had he done that, Jan 6 does not happen. In the face of the attack on the Capitol he, as Commander snd Chief with sole authority over the DC Gusrd, was required to stop the attack and protect my Government, my Election, my Constitution. He chose not to do so because he thought the violence would force the VO to unconditionally decertify the election. This would result in him keeping power.

President Trump then calls for the Constitution to be suspended, and his immediate reinstatement when the violence he courted failed to keep in power.

No, sir. President Biden is not the Ann e. The Left did not range in the above. In fact, VP Biden and President Alabama specifically spoke down movements to deny President Elect Trump the White House. Transitioning the government to him when others called for the election to be delivered to someone else.

Those that call President Trump and Jan 6 actors patriots would be calling for 2nd Amendment remedies had President Obama engaged in President Trump’s behavior leading the Left to use mob violence to prevent transition to President Trump.

One can disagree with President Biden’s policy all they want. Fair or unfair policy critique is immaterial to this discussion. It is his policy to make. Bad policy is not the above.

A lot of this needs translation.

Where does seditious conspiracy require violence?

I get that the methods were worse and Trump by virtue of being president was supposed to carry out the oath of office and do everything to prevent what happened from happening at the capitol.

I think you give Trump too much credit for some of this. I don't even think he's capable of playing checkers, let alone chess.

Biden the Ann E? Ann Landers? WTF?
The left did not range in the above?

Trump may be the commander in chief while president, and he had wide ranging authority, but the civil control of the guard means he does not have sole control, and in fact unless they nationalize the guard, he doesn't have "sole control" of the guard.

Who the sam hill is president alabama? Are you talking about that SOS that Trump tried to convince to find some votes?

As to bad policy, that is what Trump did... He elected to let the regular capitol police force, the SS around Pence, and the DC police force handle the situation, which they did... maybe not as well as could be hoped, but what does one expect after about a year of "defund the police" and hands off lawbreakers policies? He didn't call out the DC guard to support the rioters or start a real insurrection (which we all know would have been turned down and had him under military arrest).

Gore at least got his time in court. To his credit, once he lost, he gave it up, although we certainly heard, and still hear folks complaining that the court was wrong and he was rightfully president even on this website.

Trump never even got that far... because they did not produce actual evidence of what he claimed was happening, even though he claimed he had it.

We are still waiting for the evidence "any day now"...

Because the courts can't/won't enforce truthfulness on politicians and political promises.

I did not say anything about Alabama.

Yes, he does have some control to mobilize it. The General Ms testified he did. He did it during Antifia. He had the power and he alone.

“Ann e was t meant to be the enemy and Alabama was an autocorrect of Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
He has the power to.

He also has the choice to not… it’s a policy. It’s ditto of Biden making bad choices unless you have some proof that has missed the DOJ that Trump actually was a ringleader and knew and worked with them.

There are other people who can call up the guard besides the president.

The difference is that Trump fiddled when he should not have (as I recall, he was acting like a depressed teenager on prom night who no one asked to go to the dance, not like some manipulative megalomaniac.)

Others could have acted but didn’t, probably because it was a damned if you do and damned if you don’t political calculus.

You call out the guard and stop things before anything happens and you get trashed for overreacting and depriving folks of “the right to protest”… you do nothing and hope that no one gets killed or bad stuff doesn’t happen… and if it does you shift the blame to others.

In this case, it is popularly felt that it is the POTUS’s responsibility and his attempts to deflect are not working. While others could have called up extra help, they did not do so and Trump gets the blame.

I don’t disagree that Trump was ultimately responsible, but it was a systemic failure brought about by the situation of the times that someone underneath him didn’t step up… and Trumps habit of throwing subordinates under the bus was part of the circumstances.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Trump failed in at least three ways on January 6 apologists and deniers notwithstanding.

One, he failed as President because he encouraged and supported the insurrectionists in having them march to the Capitol and storm it.

Two, he failed as President because he took no action to quell the riot taking place at the Capitol.

Three, he failed as President after the events of January 6 were over by lying about the events, lauding the insurrectionists as patriots, promising to pardon the convicted insurrectionists.

Whether you focus on before, during or after (or on all three periods) Trump failed as President. Reasonable people cannot debate those facts.

quote:

Two, he failed as President because he took no action to quell the riot taking place at the Capitol.