Trump is an insurrectionist

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 335
#211
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump's superpower is that he is the only person not calling his supporters "deplorable" or "ultra MAGA extremists"
Agreed. They've never in their lives been regarded as anything other than Morons, so Trump is the first person to make them feel validated which is why they will never abandon him. But that knife cuts both ways, it is also exactly why Trumpism will never survive without Trump. His connection to his supporters has nothing to do with values, reason, or policy. It's personal, nothing more.
Topic's author
#212
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
He only says what Bezos wants him to say. At least you have a few more neurons at work and working.
Ya Bezos is always telling his editors “write more articles about that lonely, unemployed, idiot on Debateart”


Topic's author
#213
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Trump's superpower is that he is the only person not calling his supporters "deplorable" or "ultra MAGA extremists"
Trump connects with average Americans…actually, below average Americans.

And the people that don’t support Trump, does he call them losers and the radical left?

As usual, you’re comments are idiotic 

#214
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If it follows that violence is the only remaining response to the actual theft of an election, and Trump has been telling his people the election was stolen, then telling them to "peacefully" make their voices heard is logically absurd.
Yet that is what he did and no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise you will never mutate that "peacefully" into "violently".
If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.
If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.


The only rational take away in that case is that he didn't actually mean it when he used the word "peacefully".
Well when Biden says "save our democracy" he means cheat. It's the only rational explanation. See how that works? I just get to say the opposite of what the guy said because of my own premises.... but what if Biden doesn't share my premises?

Ohhh wow theory of other minds. Think about it.


This is basic human communication. When someone is sending you a mixed message where 99% of what they have conveyed to you lines up with one takeaway, and 1% of what they have conveyed lines up with the opposite takeaway... The 1% can be reasonably written off as a misspeak or otherwise unexplained comment (or in a criminal context, an obvious false exculpatory).
If "They're stealing our elections" is the 99% that is the opposite of "peacefully" then democrats "our democracy is in danger" = 100% with no "peacefully".


No one was claiming in 2000 or 2016 that republicans were engaged in some nationwide conspiracy to steal the election by faking ballots.
Their theory of the crime was ridiculous so they are let off the hook?
No genius, they weren't alleging the election was stolen through some vast conspiracy.
That's not what the audio clips said. They alleged a more centralized conspiracy than the right-tribe.


Alleging that the home team lost because of a bad call by the umpire and alleging that the home team didn't actually lose at all but rather that the scoreboard was hacked and changed by the visiting team to reflect runs that were never scored... Are two very different things.
So russians hacking and saying the koch brothers hacked 80% of all election machines is more like saying the umpire was wrong than hacking the scoreboard.... but claiming they're changing election procedures allowing mail fraud is the opposite...

mmmmmm.....

Let's see that again:

"Stolen" "illegitimate" "Trump didn't actually win, lost, put into office because the Russian interference"

Now are they claiming those "Russians" weren't criminals?

"Deliberate fraud" 2000 AD

"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"


And different things get treated... Differently.

Do you understand?
Do you understand that black people have more melanin in their skin? Different things get treated differently. Do you understand?

I understand some differences are irrelevant for some conclusions.


Again the left-tribe are worse because they took all the actions you call incitement
And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.
They attacked the white house instead.


The question you asked which started this is why should Trump be responsible for protecting the US Capitol when "the left" failed to stop the BLM riots. Please tell me your answer is seriously not "the left started it, therefore Trump was justified to do nothing as the US Capitol was being attacked".
Well I could point out there was nothing to be done at the moment, or I could point out that he offered beforehand, but no I'll go with the left started it. That's more honest.
Well your first two are factually and logically fallacious so I would certainly understand why you wouldn't go with those, but thank you for being honest and making absolutely clear that you don't actually give a rats ass about democracy, the rule of law, or the concept of a responsible government being run by responsible people. Politics is nothing more to you than some WWE style culture war dick measuring contest between the patriotic right and the evil libs. It's utterly pathetic. But thank you for making that clear, it really says allot about this conversation.
I don't see anything worth responding to.


Well now you've seen it used on the summer riots.
Yes, except the point being made in each case is entirely different, so thank you for once again demonstrating that you have absolutely no idea what we're even talking about when we bring up the violence that occurred on January 6th.
no, no it wasn't a different point. You just have double standards as I've long pointed out.


Do you know what stochastic terrorism is?
A deep state concept meant to justify censorship. Kind of like redefining terrorism as "violence for political aims, except when taken by established governments". Or an old school analog would be "reactionary".


To the latter, there is no individual primarily responsible, to the former there absolutely is.
Even if that was true, why do you think it matters?
Because that determines what we are actually dealing with and what can be done to fix it.

No individual is primarily responsible for the BLM riots because the underlying issue is one that has been heavily baked into the general world view of the black community and spread to other communities as well over the course of decades, which were then triggered by a real thing that really happened which called attention to those decades worth of grievances... So what we are dealing with is the unfortunate but natural result of a society in turmoil over a deeply contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.
and Donald Trump being believed by 70 million is unnatural? Only in TDS world.


contentious issue for which there is no practical solution.
There is a solution to lying: stop. In your case the solution is to call it stochastic terrorism and lock people up for expressing beliefs about injustice. That's what I pointed out.


The difference here is not arbitrary. Why do you think 9/11 or the Hamnas attacks drew international anger and condemnation, yet we saw nothing like that when thousands were killed in the earthquake in Haiti or the tsunami in Japan.
Black people are a natural disaster but Trump controls the redhats, I see interesting point of view. Whoops I had to drop it before I looked to closely it was just that fucking stupid.


We do not treat atrocities that occurred through natural means the same as those which were artificially crafted.
individual leader = artificial devil magic
cabal = perfectly fine

I think the deep state propaganda is much more 'artificial' than anything DJT has ever said or done. Examples can be found extremely easily. Of course in your mind a bunch of parrots saying the exact same thing just means it must be true, and apparently not only must it be true but it's natural to cause violence and nobody can be held responsible for that.


This is also why I take such issue with this constant reference to "the left". Right wingers love to talk about "the left" as if it were some person or an entity (left wingers do the same thing as well). They also do this with "the media". By painting this contorted picture of a made up boogyman it becomes much easier to smuggle in the notion of some artificial cause to our issues ("the left is lying about police violence, they're to blame!") instead of seeing the issue for what it actually is; an ideology that has taken hold throughout our society built upon the collective experiences of those who believe in it.
Evidence doesn't fit. Fake news comes in copy-paste waves. The various outlets are heads of a hydra.


which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters
Yep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.
This conspiracy theory never ceases to amaze me.
Zero (apparent) self awareness confirmed.


So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.
Once again, the circumstances here are entirely different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you are far less likely to get arrested breaking windows at an AutoZone in Tulsa Oklahoma during the middle of a riot than you are breaking into the US Capitol. Do I really need to explain to you why? HINT: it's not because of your political affiliation.
When you can firebomb federal court houses and declare a zone (which you didn't own) no longer part of the united states and shoot anyone who you suspect opposes you, and not get arrested or even more telling are arrested but not charged it's political. When you can attack the white house and the cops defending it, and you aren't charged it's political.


I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.
What's being discussed is why we are looking at the exact same thing and seeing completely opposite pictures. But the answer to that seems clear, you're a hypocrite. You sit here railing against the BLM rioters while saying out loud that you defend violence against the government of it has a chance of working. And that's not the first time you have endorsed an action that if done against the side you agree with would be sitting here also railing against.
Using violence against aggressors doesn't make you a hypocrite. BLM rioters & insurrectionists attacked government and civilians.


She made a joke.
Ah, so jokes exist. You know what else exists, metaphorical language. Do I need to give you the "fight like hell" montage? You're not doing too great on the montage front in this thread.


And do you know how we know it was a joke? By putting it in context. Not a single person who listened to her took that as anything else
How do you know that? It's not like left-tribers don't attack people. Individually and in groups.

I'm talking about him actually, forcefully, clearly, unequivocally, conveying to his supporters that physical violence is not acceptable?
Yea, you wrote it off.


No, no one has ever seen this, which is even more remarkable given that his supporters are notoriously more likely to issue death threats then that of any other politician.
Let me guess, the FBI told you that.


He knows full well what's going on yet not only does he do absolutely nothing to stop it
You mean besides all the statements you dismissed because you think it doesn't fit with the implications of the other things he's been saying.


he continues to invoke it.
He does keep unleashing people, I grant you that. Every speech has ended at some point.


#215
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R

No reasonable person can claim this man is not intentionally relying on physical violence as a means of getting what he wants.
You have proven yourself unreasonable in several instances.


The same cannot be said of any other prominent figure on the left.
There are plenty of figures on the left who have no problem with rhetoric far more violent than anything Trump has said:


"I would go and take Trump out tonight"
"I don't know why there aren't uprisings every day, maybe there will be"
"They're still going to have to go out there and put a bullet in Trump"
"Show me where protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"
"I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the white house"
"For those of you who are soldiers, make them pay"
"Does one of us come out alive?"

You just don't care. They said violent things. Lots of violence happened (overall objectively 'worse' than jan 6).

You just don't care... because you have double standards.


If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".

In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.
Yes, and every single one of them was taking the lead from Donald Trump.
You assume.


We've seen how this plays out; Trump makes an absolutely ridiculous claim (like 3,000 illegals voted on CA in 2016) and then right wing media outlets repeat it, the base grabs hold of it, so the media and now republicans treat it as a credible allegation, which gives it legitimacy, which leads to more people believing it.
Of course we don't see any of that in the left-tribe (lol).

#216
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.
If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.
I just explained this to you. Did you read it? Are you even trying to understand it?

The message that was logically absurd is the idea that what he really wanted was for them to be peaceful. It's absurd because it contradicts everything else he as well as everyone associated with him had been telling them to that point.

It is not a logically absurd message that he wanted them to be violent because that message is consistent with everything else he had been telling them. This is where the 99% vs the 1% point came in. Speaking of which...

If "They're stealing our elections" is the 99% that is the opposite of "peacefully" then democrats "our democracy is in danger" = 100% with no "peacefully".
So rather than address the actual point I just made explaining how basic communication works which shows your point to be wrong, you just invoke a whataboutism, and a false equivalence at that.

The difference between Trump's claims of a stolen election and every other clip in your little super cut is that not one of those claims leads to a call for violence.

The central claim you keep equivocating is that Trump is an "illegitimate president", which placed in it's actual context means that Trump's victory isn't taken with the respect a president is normally granted being that his election victory was aided by misinformation being peddled by a foreign advasary which the Trump campaign welcomed at the very least. The reason this is entirely different is because even the democrats making this charge acknowledge that Trump is in the White House because legal American voters are still the ones who wrote Trump's name in, even if the reasons many of them did so might have been because of Russian disinformation. That's the baseball analogy - the runs scored (legal American votes) were scored even if it was off of foul play by the other team.

That difference matters, because it doesn't matter if he won illegitimately... He still won. Democracy is not in danger because the candidate who racked up the most legal votes is the candidate in the oval office. The remedy for this issue is therefore to educate our fellow Americans into why this was an issue and decide it at the ballot box next time around. In other words, the remedy is democracy itself.

Trump's message was nothing like this. Trump's claim is that the American people did not actually vote for Joe Biden, but rather they took the oval office by force. The remedy therefore cannot be to win at the ballot box through persuasion (aka democracy). The only remedy for that is to meet force with force.

These are two entirely different messages. Do you understand?


And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.
They attacked the white house instead.
Another example of your unseriousness. Your claim was that the democrats did the same thing Trump is accused of by calling Trump illegitimate. I pointed out that if that were true one would think someone would have rioted on January 6th of those years yet no one did. So of course, you bring up an unrelated riot over a totally different issue.

Do you know what stochastic terrorism is?
A deep state concept meant to justify censorship.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. You have no idea what it is and have no interest in finding out. Like many of your answers, it really shows why you believe the things you do.

Will respond to the rest later

#217
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.
If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.
I just explained this to you. Did you read it? Are you even trying to understand it?
I understand what you are claiming. It's just a non-sequitur.

"If I don't think somebody is sending a clear and logical message then I get to make up a secret meaning and hold someone responsible for the secret meaning"

Since that doesn't make any sense what you're really saying is "I agree with you whole heartedly ADOL, I've just been lying this whole time" <- See how that works.


The message that was logically absurd is the idea that what he really wanted was for them to be peaceful.
No, that message is not absurd. The idea that election fraud without remedy doesn't justify violence is absurd. Angry / desperate people are often irrational and even a level headed person had some small reason to believe that congress or Pence may have provided a peaceful remedy.

There is something far more absurd than believing the end of American democracy is a shrug-worthy problem and that higher absurdity is that a military solution was possible for a swarm of unarmed people. Still some people are insane (or pretend to be for political advantage). There was that guy with the zip ties, what was his plan? Tie up Pelosi till she agreed to a new secure election? If people wanted to hold congress hostage they wouldn't have left the guns behind. If anything they were trying to create the circumstances for a Boston Massacre 2.0. If the media was a right-tribe propaganda instrument it would have worked.

The only general plan was to get to the gallery and scream at congress, something the left-tribe has done in state capitols before and since. This is obvious to anyone who was there and anyone who honestly reviews the mountain of evidence.

This is significantly less absurd than the BLM rioters cleaning out electronics store "for racial justice". Still the insane media propaganda smirked and said "A riot is the language of the unheard."

It wasn't as fun to quote MLK and Kennedy after Jan 6.


The difference between Trump's claims of a stolen election and every other clip in your little super cut is that not one of those claims leads to a call for violence.

In a letter from July 2012, he describes MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” as his favorite TV program.
Guess what Maddow talked about constantly in 2017?

Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co. [hodgkinson]


The reason this is entirely different is because even the democrats making this charge acknowledge that Trump is in the White House because legal American voters are still the ones who wrote Trump's name in
"Own 80% of the voting machines in the US, therefore it would be easy to hack them"


I do find it interesting that you're basically claiming democrat claims of illegitimate elections are irrelevant because they're obviously lying. Bold strategy, or what did you call it? False exculpatory. "Nobody actually believed what I just said did they?"


That difference matters, because it doesn't matter if he won illegitimately... He still won.
I'm sure that's what "not my president" means. Like Tim Pool says: Biden won the process

That's not what we mean when we say Biden didn't win the presidency. We mean the election was illegitimate, not that results weren't announced and treated as real by the people with guns. That is exactly what many left-tribers believed and exactly what the rhetoric https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/ would lead them to believe.


These are two entirely different messages. Do you understand?
I understand you're lying and you secretly agree with me. This technique of "context" sure is useful.


Your claim was that the democrats did the same thing Trump is accused of by calling Trump illegitimate.
Yep, and saying the election was hacked.


I pointed out that if that were true one would think someone would have rioted on January 6th of those years yet no one did.
It's true regardless.


So of course, you bring up an unrelated riot over a totally different issue.
Left-tribe lies, left-tribe attacks government building.

You can try to split hairs and pretend it matters (or can be known) the exact motivations of each and every rioter. You have fun doing that, I don't care. I never said that the claims had to be identical. I specifically brought up the myth of racist cops as a counter-example.


Yeah, that's exactly what I thought. You have no idea what it is and have no interest in finding out.
See this statement implies that I answered "I don't know and I don't care", but I in fact did not say that. Therefore it would be absurd to take the message at face value. Once again your secret message is "I see your point, right again ADOL."
#218
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Trump is a sociopathic narcissist and has basically every single symptom of both.

Anyone who can't see it is scarily low in EQ.

I am talking every single symptom glaring at you.
#219
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I understand what you are claiming. It's just a non-sequitur.

"If I don't think somebody is sending a clear and logical message then I get to make up a secret meaning and hold someone responsible for the secret meaning"
At this point you must be trolling, no one is this stupid.

Not a single thing I've said would lead anyone with an IQ above room temperature with this understanding of my position. I've argued that context matters and then explained the context to Trump's words. I've explained that when someone has sent you a message which 99% of their words and actions align with, you don't walk away with the 1%. And I've explained how Trump's words lead to the conclusion that he's calling for violence.

Or to hear you explain it back; "dUh YoU geT TO jUst maKE uP wHAteveR yOU wAnt"

This post isn't really for you. I prefer to talk to people who read.

But what's really remarkable about this "lack of understanding" is that not only do you understand it, you agree with it. You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence, our only disagreement here is whether three words in one sentence of one speech cancel out everything else he had said and done for the prior two months. I say it doesn't (because that's basic common sense), you argue it does. But that disagreement demonstrates that my conclusion is not made up. You're a brazenly dishonest hack.

Still some people are insane (or pretend to be for political advantage). There was that guy with the zip ties, what was his plan? Tie up Pelosi till she agreed to a new secure election? If people wanted to hold congress hostage they wouldn't have left the guns behind.
Two things can be true at the same time. It's remarkable that you acknowledge how dumb people can be while arguing that January 6th couldn't be what people like me are saying because people aren't that dumb.

Yes, any thinking human being planning to hijack American democracy would come up with a better plan than to show up unarmed and attack the Capitol. That's the entire point of stochastic terrorism. Everyone (including Trump) knows there are idiots out there. Everyone knows when you can rally thousands of people into a mob you're going to get some percentage of them to do outrageous things. That's the point. Trump knew damn well what he was doing when he called them all to the Capitol.

The only general plan was to get to the gallery and scream at congress
Right, that was really clear by the way they broke through police barriers, beat up police officers, and broke through the windows to get into the capitol. All of that just to yell at Congress.

You can't be serious.

This is significantly less absurd than the BLM rioters cleaning out electronics store "for racial justice". Still the insane media propaganda smirked and said "A riot is the language of the unheard."
I've already made clear that anyone who was guilty of this should have been locked the fuck up. You are having a conversation here with yourself.


In a letter from July 2012, he describes MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” as his favorite TV program.
Guess what Maddow talked about constantly in 2017?
Ok, now show me the segment of her show that would lead any halfway intelligent person to the conclusion that she was calling for violence. I'll wait.

I do find it interesting that you're basically claiming democrat claims of illegitimate elections are irrelevant because they're obviously lying. Bold strategy
Not even close to anything I've said. Learn to read.

That's not what we mean when we say Biden didn't win the presidency. We mean the election was illegitimate, not that results weren't announced and treated as real by the people with guns. That is exactly what many left-tribers believed and exactly what the rhetoric https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/ would lead them to believe.
No one is disputing the results. Biden was certified as the winner. Biden was sworn in. Biden controls the military and the west wing. We all agree on this, that's not what we're talking about.

We're talking about how you are taking two different things and calling them the same. Those two different things are as follows:

The left in 2016: The president received the most legal votes in the states he needed to win the electoral college, but he did it with the help of Russian disinformation which we do not respect.

The right in 2020: The president did not receive the most legal votes in the states he needed to win the electoral college, he only took power because our democracy was hijacked via a massive left wing conspiracy.

Do you understand how these two things are different? Do you understand why that difference matters?
#220
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence
I did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.


You're a brazenly dishonest hack.
The feeling is mutual.


Everyone (including Trump) knows there are idiots out there. Everyone knows when you can rally thousands of people into a mob you're going to get some percentage of them to do outrageous things. That's the point. Trump knew damn well what he was doing when he called them all to the Capitol.
and Trump is a very stable genius for knowing how to manipulate mobs but also a complete moron for thinking if you tie up Nancy Pelosi a new election will be organized. It all holds together (not).


You can't be serious.
I am.


I've already made clear that anyone who was guilty of this should have been locked the fuck up.
But you don't think those who lied to them should be locked the fuck up. That is the double standard.


The left in 2016: The president received the most legal votes in the states he needed to win the electoral college, but he did it with the help of Russian disinformation which we do not respect.

You're rewriting history because history proves you have double standards. "Illegitimate" does not mean "Russian tweets make us upset". You don't object to electors because Russians tweeted something. They did fail to present a theory, but that was only to prevent scrutiny. As we saw in the 2020 debacle when there are a hundred theories around some will be stupid and easily disproved. They knew their base was brainless enough to not ask questions.


#221
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence
I did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.
Oh really? Let's see what that looks like. Here's you in post 191:

Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful
"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.

That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
*If* elections are rigged, *then* violence is the only remaining option. According to you.

So what was Trump's message ever since election night 2020? That the election was rigged.

So what follows from that logically (according to you)? That violence is the only remaining option.

You have in fact agreed with my position, and now you're trying to claim I've been arguing that it's ok to just make up whatever position one wants, even as you agree with the takeaway here. You're just lying now.

And you are correct, questioning election integrity does not amount to incitement of rebellion. It is also absolutely not what Trump did - he repeatedly said the election was rigged. That's not "questioning" the results. Says the English language. And violence does in fact follow from that. Says you.

You also conveniently forget that Trump in addition to telling his supporters the election was rigged, also called them to come to the Capitol warning them it "will be wild" (have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?) so he gave them the time and place to do it. This isn't rocket science.

and Trump is a very stable genius for knowing how to manipulate mobs but also a complete moron for thinking if you tie up Nancy Pelosi a new election will be organized. 
Yeah this is that usual Trump defender argument that suggests intelligence is just one thing and we're all smart or not smart and that's it, which completely ignores how the human brain actually works.

We're all better at some things than we are in others. Think of the guy who is studying to become a physicist but can't figure out how to talk to a girl. Trump is a moron in pretty much every way a person can be, but he has at least one undeniable skill; he's a very good con man.

Some say he's a genius at marketing but I don't know if I'd go that far, in my view his marketing tactics only appeal to stupid people so I'm really not that impressed by it. I think of things like the nicknames he gives his political opponents. It works with his base because they're a bunch of children so that kind of thing  appeals to them. I could never pull that off because I'm not dumb enough and immature enough to find that amusing so I would have never thought to try it out as a political strategy.

Regarding the second part, you still clearly do not even know what this conversation is about. Trump's strategy was not to have Nancy Pelosi tied up so he could declare himself president for life. His plan was to use the mob as a means of delaying the certification so he could continue working behind the scenes to overturn the election. The mob rioters were just pawns to him, he was trying to execute a much larger plot.

You can't be serious.
I am.
Then you are way dumber than I thought. If you really believe the people who beat up police officers on their way into breaking into the US Capitol did all of that just so they could stop at the hallways and yell at members of Congress... I mean my god this speaks for itself.

I've already made clear that anyone who was guilty of this should have been locked the fuck up.
But you don't think those who lied to them should be locked the fuck up. That is the double standard.
It's always going to be a double standard when you ignore the differences. I've explained in detail why these are dramatically different things, all you've done is strawmanned them and then attacked the silly arguments you made up. You're having an entire conversation with yourself.

You're rewriting history because history proves you have double standards. "Illegitimate" does not mean "Russian tweets make us upset".
Nor was that my argument. Enjoy talking to yourself.
#222
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence
I did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.
Oh really? Let's see what that looks like. Here's you in post 191:
Look at you quoting. It's like you actually think you have something. Normally I'm the one who quotes and you pretend you never said anything.


Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful
"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.

That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)
*If* elections are rigged, *then* violence is the only remaining option. According to you.
IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.

Thus elections would no longer be rigged.


And you are correct, questioning election integrity does not amount to incitement of rebellion. It is also absolutely not what Trump did - he repeatedly said the election was rigged.
Not conspiracy theorists, just asking questions. Well a bit more than asking questions: https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/


have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?
I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.


His plan was to use the mob as a means of delaying the certification so he could continue working behind the scenes to overturn the election.
Uh huh, and they needed to be violent to delay the counting?

I have a simpler theory: Pence sees giant crowd chanting, thinks he has no choice but to obey the people, and reject the electors.


If you really believe the people who beat up police officers
All 10 of them.

#223
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.

Thus elections would no longer be rigged.
Which is all irrelevant to the discission. The people storming the Capitol weren't sitting around strategizing over constitutional provisions. This is exactly the non-response I was expecting.

Again, Trump told them over and over again the election was rigged. According to you that means violence is justified. His message was heard loud and clear.

have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?
I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.
Fiery means passionate. Wild means out of control. Says people who speak English.

But that's fine. "Will be wild" when referring to a political protest doesn't mean violent, according to you. Because that makes sense.

Just another example of the knots one has to twist themselves in to defend Donald Trump.

Uh huh, and they needed to be violent to delay the counting?

I have a simpler theory: Pence sees giant crowd chanting, thinks he has no choice but to obey the people, and reject the electors.
No Vice President is going to change their mind on whether they should certify the United States presidential election - a decision that will effect the outcome for over 300 million Americans - on the basis that they don't want to upset a peaceful crowd of protesters outside.

This is the kind of stupidity one is reduced to when trying to defend Donald Trump.

If you really believe the people who beat up police officers
All 10 of them
Right, 10 Trump supporters who managed to injure 140 Capitol police officers. They must have been superheros.

But you defend Donald Trump so it all makes sense.
#224
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.

Thus elections would no longer be rigged.
Which is all irrelevant to the discission.
It is not if they believed it was possible and they did.


have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?
I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.
Fiery means passionate. Wild means out of control. Says people who speak English.
So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.


But that's fine. "Will be wild" when referring to a political protest doesn't mean violent, according to you. Because that makes sense.
Maybe he should have said "it will be an uprising". That would have been peaceful right?


Just another example of the knots one has to twist themselves in to defend Donald Trump.
Yep, these sure are tangled knots I'm tying. I wonder if forty years from now historians will scour the internet and interview people and you'll be asked if you really believed what you were typing.


No Vice President is going to change their mind on whether they should certify the United States presidential election
What if that vice president was named Donald Trump? Steve Bannon? Kari Lake?


Right, 10 Trump supporters who managed to injure 140 Capitol police officers.
and murder half the population of the world with fire extinguishers as well as turning Nancy Pelosi into a newt (it got better).
#225
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Which is all irrelevant to the discission.
It is not if they believed it was possible and they did.
It's quite amusing watching you try to argue that the people beating up police officers with flag poles and spraying then with bear mace were really just constitutional strategists who did all of this because they had a plan to get the electors sent back to the states, a plan that btw, wanted nothing to do with violence against members of Congress.

Arguing with Trump supporters is always a fascinating experience.

So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.
Great argument as to how Trump's "will be wild" comment was not a clear indication of violence.

Yep, these sure are tangled knots I'm tying. I wonder if forty years from now historians will scour the internet and interview people and you'll be asked if you really believed what you were typing.
Historians are already ranking Trump the worst president in the country's history, about 4th worst according to conservative and republican historians. That's not going to change.

Trumpism will be a case study for decades to come in how political bias can warp a person's brain.

No Vice President is going to change their mind on whether they should certify the United States presidential election
What if that vice president was named Donald Trump? Steve Bannon? Kari Lake?
Then they would have not have certified the results
regardless of who is protesting.

You conveniently left out the next part - "on the basis that they don't want to upset a peaceful crowd of protesters outside". Your argument is that the rioters plan all along was to beat their way to get to Congress just so that they could yell at them. And your theory on that is that they thought yelling at Congress or Pence would cause them to change their minds. Setting aside of course that you don't have a shred of evidence to support this, that's just plain stupid.

Right, 10 Trump supporters who managed to injure 140 Capitol police officers.
and murder half the population of the world with fire extinguishers as well as turning Nancy Pelosi into a newt (it got better).
Yeah, that's what it looks like when you find yourself trying to argue something even you know is ridiculous.
#226
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
It's quite amusing watching you try to argue that the people beating up police officers with flag poles and spraying then with bear mace were really just constitutional strategists who did all of this because they had a plan to get the electors sent back to the states, a plan that btw, wanted nothing to do with violence against members of Congress.
It's no longer amusing to point out your obvious strawmen.



So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.
Great argument as to how Trump's "will be wild" comment was not a clear indication of violence.
It's a great argument about yardsticks. You decide how pearl clutchy you want to be, I'm just keeping you honest (well of course I can't, but I can point out the dishonesty which is what I just did).


Historians are already ranking Trump the worst president in the country's history
I already rank those historians as the worst historians of this decade, and I have no doubt they will soon be forgotten.


That's not going to change.
I think it will become part of history in the same way the concept of jewish" and "aryan" science are now understood to be examples of the all encompassing corruption which post-rational ideology insists on.


And your theory on that is that they thought yelling at Congress or Pence would cause them to change their minds.
That is the theory of protests.


Setting aside of course that you don't have a shred of evidence to support this,
and you have no evidence you haven't stopped beating your wife yet.

You have put forth a theory of motivation that requires there are no better explanations, and there are. I don't need to prove those other explanations for them to be better explanations than your zero evidence theory.


that's just plain stupid.
Of course you need to firebomb federal court houses if you want real change.


Yeah, that's what it looks like when you find yourself trying to argue something even you know is ridiculous.
The only thing that would be ridiculous would be believing numbers from the propagandists who continue to claim Brian Sicknick was murdered and yet he walked home afterward.

It's like a crime-comedy and I give it the gravity that deserves.
#227
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think it will become part of history in the same way the concept of jewish" and "aryan" science are now understood to be examples of the all encompassing corruption which post-rational ideology insists on.
That's pretty deep.

In those historical times, political elites simply killed off the intellectuals of the opposing ideologies of conquered nations. Today they use more subversive methods.
Topic's author
#228
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@Double_R
At this point you must be trolling, no one is this stupid.
I wouldn’t be so sure. ADOL is pretty stupid.

Topic's author
#229
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
That's pretty deep.
What about the substitute teacher elites who watch Tim Pool? 

Oh right, they aren’t elite at all or even competent 

#230
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol, that's some pretty deep trolling from a guy with 4 wives, 12 kids, 11 houses, was a 6 star general, and now flies SpaceX rockets for a living.
Topic's author
#231
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Tim Pool - News for morons
#232
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Lol, that's some pretty deep trolling from a guy with 4 wives, 12 kids, 11 houses, was a 6 star general, and now flies SpaceX rockets for a living.
#233
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's no longer amusing to point out your obvious strawmen.
It's what you've been arguing. Bad enough you don't read my arguments, at least read your own.

Great argument as to how Trump's "will be wild" comment was not a clear indication of violence.
It's a great argument about yardsticks. You decide how pearl clutchy you want to be, I'm just keeping you honest
No, you're just throwing out a red herring because you know you can't defend the absurd point you've been trying to make.

Trump's "will be wild" post was an obvious allusion to violence. Shrug that off all you want, it's still true.

I already rank those historians as the worst historians of this decade
Of course you do. They disagree with you so it must be them, never you. Another demonstration of how one manages to create their own reality.

And your theory on that is that they thought yelling at Congress or Pence would cause them to change their minds.
That is the theory of protests.
Does that theory include injuring 140 Capitol police officers and forcing Congress to evacuate the US Capitol? Sounds pretty incoherent to me, but you're defending Trump so of course it is.

You have put forth a theory of motivation that requires there are no better explanations, and there are. I don't need to prove those other explanations for them to be better explanations than your zero evidence theory.
If you are going to offer an alternative theory of motivation then you absolutely need to show your theory more reasonable, which has failed miserably.

My theory only requires that the people rioting were doing so because they were following the leader with no coherent plan on what to do next. There is nothing remarkable about that idea at all, people who are angry do stupid things all the time. Your theory is that the people who beat up police officers in order to get to Congress would have all of a sudden turned peaceful once they got there. That's just stupid.
#234
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Trump's "will be wild" post was an obvious allusion to violence. Shrug that off all you want, it's still true.
If "will be wild" is an allusion to violence. "uprisings all the time" is 5X allusion to violence.


If you are going to offer an alternative theory of motivation then you absolutely need to show your theory more reasonable
Check


My theory only requires that the people rioting were doing so because they were following the leader with no coherent plan on what to do next.
Your theory allows for incoherent people but you would not allow that people thought protesting would change the behavior of politicians because it was too irrational to think such a thing. Mmmm


Your theory is that the people who beat up police officers in order to get to Congress...
All 10 of them would not have been enough to do anything when the others held them back. They didn't beat up police for the sake of beating up police, they beat through police. Any police who got out the way had nothing to worry about. This is on the record.
#235
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If "will be wild" is an allusion to violence. "uprisings all the time" is 5X allusion to violence.
Another example of why context matters.

When Trump said it "Will be wild", he was referring to the "protest" that he was calling for, organizing, and headlining. That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.

This is yet again, another whataboutism because you cannot defend your own bullshit. Trump signaled very clearly to his supporters that he was expecting them to be violent. Anyone who understands English can see that. 

Your theory allows for incoherent people but you would not allow that people thought protesting would change the behavior of politicians because it was too irrational to think such a thing. Mmmm
My theory is that people who have already demonstrated their violent intentions... Cannot be asserted as non-violent. This is basic common sense.

I've explained this to you what now, two times? Three times? Why is this so difficult for you?

They didn't beat up police for the sake of beating up police, they beat through police. Any police who got out the way had nothing to worry about.
Ah yes of course, what were those Capitol police officers thinking by trying to stop a mob from breaking into the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the presidential election? Why didn't they just get out of the way? Silly them.

And yes, they beat their way through the police. We agree. And they did it just so they could get to Congress and stop them... by yelling at them.

No way you are being serious.

#236
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.
It's just a kind of tradition to address no one by by standing at a podium and talking to a camera transmitting to millions.


This is yet again, another whataboutism because you cannot defend your own bullshit
Pointing out your double standards is not whataboutism. It was always my point.


My theory is that people who have already demonstrated their violent intentions... Cannot be asserted as non-violent. This is basic common sense.
Your theory is that people who broke windows would also harm people. Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassins. You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence. That's why you lose every single point of comparison. You can't utter a single principle that doesn't incriminate the left-tribe more, and I'm not even close to being tired of pointing that out so please try again.


Ah yes of course, what were those Capitol police officers thinking by trying to stop a mob from breaking into the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the presidential election? Why didn't they just get out of the way? Silly them.
Red herring.
Topic's author
#237
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Red herring.
No, it’s not.

Any police who got out the way had nothing to worry about.
What an idiotic statement by our resident idiot.

#238
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.

[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
#239
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's just a kind of tradition to address no one by by standing at a podium and talking to a camera transmitting to millions.
As usual, you cannot defend your BS so you try and wiggle out of it.

The claim was that the person who made this comment is comparable to Trump, even though Trump was describing a protest that he was calling for, organizing, and headlining. The individual who made this uprising comment was talking about some vague notion of people somewhere doing something on some date. Those two things are not comparable.

So how do you respond? By pointing out that the individual making the uprising claim was speaking to someone, just like Trump. Wow, good one.

And the funny thing is, this wasn't even the original disagreement, we're only comparing these two statements in the first place because you brought it up as a whataboutism because you couldn't just accept that Trump's "will be wild" comment was a clear allusion to an expectation of violence.

In many ways, this perfectly illustrates the problem with this conversation and with your ability to comprehend the subject. This isn't an intellectual discission to you, it's some sort of battle between good and evil. And because evil can't win, even the simplest ideas must be rejected. So for example the notion that context matters when trying to understand what someone is saying is labeled as a tactic of manipulation regardless of the fact that's it a basic reality about communication.

Pointing out your double standards is not whataboutism.
It is when you do so in a way that changes the subject from the ridiculous claim you were making.

Your theory is that people who broke windows would also harm people.
No genius, my theory is that people who already harmed people, would continue harming people.

That's been made crystal clear by this point, if you don't understand it it's because you don't want to.

Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassins
And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point? Are you even talking to me anymore, or has it become so difficult for you to understsnd the most basic arguments because you're no longer talking to any individual, but instead are trying to argue with left wing ideology itself?

You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence.
Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe. Go argue about this with someone who cares.

That's why you lose every single point of comparison.
My comparisons fail (to you) because you don't even know what's being compared. You seem unwilling or incapable of understanding that there's more to political differences than which tribe as a whole is more violent.

You can't utter a single principle that doesn't incriminate the left-tribe more, and I'm not even close to being tired of [strawmanning your position] so please try again.
Fixed
#240
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The individual who made this uprising comment was talking about some vague notion of people somewhere doing something on some date. Those two things are not comparable.
So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?

If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?


So how do you respond? By pointing out that the individual making the uprising claim was speaking to someone, just like Trump. Wow, good one.
You said:
[Double_R] That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.
That's a bit silly and I pointed that out.


So for example the notion that context matters when trying to understand what someone is saying is labeled as a tactic of manipulation regardless of the fact that's it a basic reality about communication.
It's the notion that you can throw "context" out like a pokemon card and then you don't have to find a defamatory statement that continues to simultaneously disgust and amuse me.


Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassins
And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?
My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.


You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence.
Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.
Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.