greg1647545532

Were they not instigated also by many left politicians?

Here's my take. I don't know what the articles of impeachment that are currently being debated look like, but the draft I read over the weekend laid out a very clear accusation against Trump. Specifically, that he:

1. Made up lies about rampant election fraud, which

2. Convinced a lot of his supporters that he, Donald Trump, was the true winner of the election and should remain president on 21 Jan. That he

3. Organized an event, incriminatingly called "STOP THE STEAL," at the White House on the day that the EC was to be certified. And he

4. Told the mob that he had gathered at the event that he would lead them to the Capitol building in order to do exactly what they gathered there to do, so that he could

5. Remain in power despite having lost the election.

The facts are not in dispute, even among top Republicans. These top Republicans include, but are not limited to, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, former AG Bill Barr, at least 2 of Trump's few remaining cabinet secretaries, and unofficially (via Lindsay Graham), Trump's own legal counsel and chief of staff.

Since those facts are stipulated to by "both sides," the only thing left to debate is whether or not those facts should result in Trump's removal from office. Personally, it seems insane to me that someone who tried to steal the presidency by force, an effort which resulted in multiple deaths, would be left in control of the nuclear codes or anything else in the executive branch, even for 5 minutes. I can't believe he's still in power right now, although you get the impression from Graham and others that he's basically a cuck in his own White House.

You'll notice that nowhere in the above do I mention leftist violence or BLM. The debate is strictly about Trump's actions, and what to do about them, and additionally, what to do about the Republican leadership like Cruz and Hawley who went along with his lies about election fraud and his little charade about objecting to the EC certification. I would like something to happen to those people, but I'm not holding my breath.

If you think that specific politicians on the left instigated violence, as the part of your post I quoted suggests, then by all means, level an accusation as succinct as the accusation levied against Trump in the impeachment article and we can debate it. But we need specifics, because I don't know who you're referring to or what specific violence they're responsible for. If your claim is simply that encouraging BLM protests rises to the level of "inciting violence" as the direct attack on the Capitol 5 days ago, then I don't think that claim has much merit, nor does it have any bearing on the impending impeachment. If your claim is that Democrats didn't denounce the violence the led from some BLM marches, then I can provide cites (some are in the previous thread) countering this.

If you think that in general, leftist rabble rousing hasn't been handled with the same level of condemnation that we're now seeing against the right, then I agree 100%. And we can discuss that as well if you'd like. But pointing this out is not a defense of Trump, and it does nothing to address the immediate concern of the fact that we have an insurrection in the White House, still in power, still able to fuck up democracy for another 9 days.

If you think that leftist violence needs to be handled more thoroughly, then now is a chance for Republicans to take the high road and show Democrats how it's done. Impeach Trump, remove him from office, and then sit up on top of Capitol Hill and say, "This is what you should have done when the left was rioting in the streets." Shame the Democrats from a position of moral superiority. But letting a literal insurrectionist get away with violence against our own government because of a general sense of unfairness doesn't make sense to me.

I really don’t understand how the main tech companies can conspire shut down a competitor and everyone is okay with it. It’s such a slippery slope when you start censoring opinions and voices. You arent targeting just the extremists with these moves. This is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

No, I don’t have a parler account. It doesn’t feel like a free market when the big 3 decide they don’t like you and don’t want you to operate any longer.

 

I saw someone post this - it’s like your phone company cutting off your service because they don’t like what you talk about with your friends.

What do you propose? What we have now is already pretty close to the conservative, free market ideal.

Why shouldn't you have bothered?

I'm sure it's good and I guess Mace is right, after tax and shipping it probably wasn't a bad price, but it doesn't seem like it was a rare score or a great price. I do probably need a few "guest tasting" bottles but I'm more about the $23 bottles of Woodford they sometimes have and going through them faster than my wife thinks is healthy. Just had a bit of a FOMO moment in the store when I saw it up there and it was the only bottle left.

At the defense center? I picked up a bottle of mount gay double cask there. They had an ok selection for the size of the store, I wondered if they could order requests.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

Wright Patt. They have good prices on the volume sellers but I've never been impressed with the selection. I haven't asked about special orders.

I did pick up a bottle of Whistle Pig 10 year rye there today but after checking online I probably shouldn't have bothered.

Social medial platforms are continue to the be toxic burden on society IMO.

+1

Pretty amazing that they put this all down and explained the reasoning.

I'm going to go ahead and be an asshole and say that it's pretty amazing that you wrote a 4 paragraph reply "correcting" Richard Cranium without doing a basic amount of research to inform your position.

I can appreciate that, but also say it’s kinda bullshit. They were looking for any reason to ban him. Also, IMO, this dedicated group of his supporters are going to do shit either way. It’s not going to be sparked by him at this point. I fear that what Twitter has actually done is created more division and more reason for any level of conservative voice to stay away from that platform. Twitter will become the world biggest orgy-fest of liberal buffoonery we will ever see. The funny part about them banning him is in 2016 Twitter was TANKING in users. When he announced his candidacy, it had a massive spike and has grown so large that people literally have jobs just to respond to him on Twitter lol. So by banning him they are effectively removing a MASSIVE amount of content for the platform. There are some in the entertainment/social marketing space im close with that analyze this kind is data, they think it spells a slow death of Twitter. Wouldn’t that be ironic lol.

Twitter is making a lot of enemies on "both sides" right now. While I believe you're factually incorrect about twitter tanking in 2016, they've certainly profited from algorithms that promote bullshit conspiracy theories and blatant misinformation. E.g., they certainly have profited immensely from Trump and the controversies he fans. Trump shouldn't be banned in 2021, he should be reduced to a nobody in 2012 because Twitter doesn't promote his lies. At this point all of these algorithms that have only cared about bringing in the most ad revenue have created a monster in the form of a massively uninformed and misinformed population who follow and believe in the nonsense spewing forth from idiotic demagogues. The companies that created them don't know what else to do except hit the ban button and hope that people forget how complicit they were in all of this.

Fuck Twitter. Fuck Facebook. Fuck Trump.

I don't tweeter and didn't see those. What did those 2 say? His vid seemed to tell them to stand down and go home.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

Yes I understand he did do something, which resulted in a suspension. My understanding is they are terminating his account now because he might do something else. Does that make sense?

He tweeted twice after his suspension was lifted (not including his hostage video), and Twitter decided that both of those tweets might continue to incite to violence.

If Trump had won in November and ANTIFA had stormed the capital building to stop the electoral college count, I have a hard time thinking that anyone here would find any silver linings. This really doesn't seem like the way anything ought to be accomplished.

Lindsay Graham said multiple times in his speech things along the lines of, "One of them could have had a bomb." I honestly hadn't really though about that before he said it.

If Trump had won in November and ANTIFA had stormed the capital building to stop the electoral college count, I have a hard time thinking that anyone here would find any silver linings. This really doesn't seem like the way anything ought to be accomplished.

Lindsay Graham said multiple times in his speech things along the lines of, "One of them could have had a bomb." I honestly hadn't really though about that before he said it.

People who don't care don't reply compulsively.

Yeah I was kidding, it's actually eating me up inside not to respond but fuck if you didn't get all up in my head about this now.

I think you misunderstood my post of a couple simple sentences...

 

Figures

<Shrug> Guess so. But if you don't care, neither do I.

We are all on here, we all must have some compulsions.

High five for being fucked up!

Bruh...I did. In the post. Where I quoted you. Your literal words. Just...lol. :lolguy:

You have to spell it out because I don't see it. I said I'm posting here out of a sick compulsion. I don't enjoy but I can't go away.

If you don't enjoy it, and you don't share a similar compulsion, then you can go away.

Is there a contradiction there? Please explain.

eta: And it wasn't a juvenile tactic. I will readily admit that getting involved in internet arguments is a personality flaw that I have. I tell people in real life that I do this and I'm ashamed. If you're above getting into petty political squabbles online then I'm 100% serious about you being better than me in this regard.

Where was I wrong?

Take the time to explain how I contradicted myself, please. I promise I will take it seriously if you do.

Speaks volumes. Summarizes every post you've made in this entire thread. Well done.

Hence, the sick compulsion. Why couldn't I just let you be wrong? I compulsively had to correct you. I didn't enjoy it, but I couldn't just go away. You know, because of the compulsion.

Do you have a similar compulsion that forces you to continually click on, read, and reply to a thread that you don't enjoy? If so, then maybe I understand you more than I realize.

I get it, you're better than me. Stop rubbing it in. I can't help who I am.

Then you contradicted yourself. Well done.

Nope, I didn't.

Lindsey Graham is fired up too.

Still watching this, but Graham's ability to flip-flop between respectable statesman and spineless coward is fascinating.

This speech is definitely respectable statesmen, and I agree with everything thus far, including his statements about the lasting effects of handling those who committed political terrorism in Portland and Seattle with kid gloves.

But man, he is not mincing words:

As to these two gentlemen, most Americans will not know the service that Mark Meadows and Pat Cipollone, and those under their charge, provided to this country over the past year. ... So to those who believe you should leave your post now to make a statement, I would urge you not. ... I have talked to Joe [Manchin] this morning. He has called for those around the president to stay in place to ensure that we can have a peaceful, efficient transfer of power.

Bolding mine. Strong words attacking the president. And yet, the Trump administration has been so bad for the last year, that America will never know the true service these folks acting behind the scenes have done. And yet, when Lindsay Graham had the opportunity to do something about it, he turned into spineless coward Lindsay Graham.

Anyway, gonna go back to listening. I'm disappointed that he's not on board with a 25th amendment solution. I hope he votes for removal if this 2nd impeachment gets off the ground.

eta: And right back to spineless coward in the Q&A.