47 minutes ago, nauseus said:

And what do you think is being done to the USA right now that isn't damaging?

Perhaps you could tell what you believe is being done to the USA right now that is damaging?

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

And what do you think is being done to the USA right now that isn't damaging?

trump bigly lost the election (by about 7 MILLION votes) so that's one thing that's not damaging; him in the WH.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So what is an insurrection if not an attempt to take over the government?

See, as I explained early in this thread, that's why I prefer not to use the word "insurrection," even though it is correct. It insinuates a next-step that may not be intended or attempted............ a "coup." - - - - - An attempt to overthrow of the government. 

 

But the word "insurrection" means a violent action taken with the goal of changing how the government operates. It doesn't necessarily mean the goal is to replace an existing government. 

 

Technically...... although the word is never used for them.......... the BLM and ANTIFA protests could ALSO correctly be called "insurrections"............. because they both clearly desired to affect a change in how the government operates. 

 

So no, "insurrection" and "overthrow"............ do not necessarily go together! They CAN, but they don't have to. 

 

Cheers! 

6 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

See, as I explained early in this thread, that's why I prefer not to use the word "insurrection," even though it is correct. It insinuates a next-step that may not be intended or attempted............ a "coup." - - - - - An attempt to overthrow of the government. 

 

But the word "insurrection" means a violent action taken with the goal of changing how the government operates. It doesn't necessarily mean the goal is to replace an existing government. 

 

Technically...... although the word is never used for them.......... the BLM and ANTIFA protests could ALSO correctly be called "insurrections"............. because they both clearly desired to affect a change in how the government operates. 

 

So no, "insurrection" and "overthrow"............ do not necessarily go together! They CAN, but they don't have to. 

 

Cheers! 

The goal was to replace an elected President. In short, insurrection.

3 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

trump bigly lost the election (by about 7 MILLION votes) so that's one thing that's not damaging; him in the WH.

Popular Vote means nothing. Our president is elected by thoroughly anti-democratic means: The Electoral College. 

 

Popular Vote defines whether a President has a mandate........... but it doesn't determine who becomes President. In roughly 10% of our Presidential Elections, the person who got fewer votes........... became President........... including two of the last three, before Biden. 

 

Fewer than 90,000 votes spread among three States determined the 2016 election...........because of the Electoral College system. Meanwhile, Hillary had "won" by 2.9 million votes.

 

If I recall, if 0.007% of the population had lived some place else.......... Hillary would have won!

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The goal was to replace an elected President. In short, insurrection.

Until the Electoral Count was certified, Biden HADN'T BEEN "elected." The process wasn't complete, yet. Indeed, even though Joe Biden was being CALLED the "President-elect".......... he wasn't yet, actually. 

 

Of course, historically, none of these technical details mattered. You could label and mislabel to your heart's content.......... because what was technically untrue at one point........... invariably BECAME true at another point. 

 

And then came that moment of........... THERE'S A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING! ????????????

 

By the way......... 

 

The President at the time of the "insurrection"........... was Donald Trump. The "insurrection" had no goal of changing that! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Until the Electoral Count was certified, Biden HADN'T BEEN "elected." The process wasn't complete, yet. Indeed, even though Joe Biden was being CALLED the "President-elect".......... he wasn't yet, actually. 

 

Of course, historically, none of these technical details mattered. You could label and mislabel to your heart's content.......... because what was technically untrue at one point........... invariably BECAME true at another point. 

 

And then came that moment of........... THERE'S A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING! ????????????

 

By the way......... 

 

The President at the time of the "insurrection"........... was Donald Trump. The "insurrection" had no goal of changing that! ????????????

 

Cheers! 

If you torture those words any harder they'll start screaming. ????

 

They were attempting to subvert the process of presidential succession and the transfer of power. In sort, insurrection. And seditious conspiracy.

 

 

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

And what do you think is being done to the USA right now that isn't damaging?

The question is just another lead-in to bash Joe Biden. I am satisfied to have a normal human being as President instead of a psychotic who is at war with the media.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Popular Vote means nothing. Our president is elected by thoroughly anti-democratic means: The Electoral College. 

 

Popular Vote defines whether a President has a mandate........... but it doesn't determine who becomes President. In roughly 10% of our Presidential Elections, the person who got fewer votes........... became President........... including two of the last three, before Biden. 

 

Fewer than 90,000 votes spread among three States determined the 2016 election...........because of the Electoral College system. Meanwhile, Hillary had "won" by 2.9 million votes.

 

If I recall, if 0.007% of the population had lived some place else.......... Hillary would have won!

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

Best thing posted on this subject so far. Thanks.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Popular Vote means nothing. Our president is elected by thoroughly anti-democratic means: The Electoral College. 

 

Popular Vote defines whether a President has a mandate........... but it doesn't determine who becomes President. In roughly 10% of our Presidential Elections, the person who got fewer votes........... became President........... including two of the last three, before Biden. 

 

Fewer than 90,000 votes spread among three States determined the 2016 election...........because of the Electoral College system. Meanwhile, Hillary had "won" by 2.9 million votes.

 

If I recall, if 0.007% of the population had lived some place else.......... Hillary would have won!

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

Are you suggesting that Biden didn't get the most college votes? Your deflection has nothing to do with this process. in this case Biden won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote. you don't have a point.

Great to see the Proud Boys having a change of heart.

Off-topic post with unapproved source removed along with a conspiracy post.  Stay on topic. 

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So to be clear, a couple hundred guys "heavily" armed with pepper-spray, baseball-bats, stun-guns and broken flag-poles were going to take over the United States Government.

 

It is interesting that generally the same people that argue this is true, are arguing in other thread that semi-automatic fire-arms would be useless against the United States Government.  

No, they were going to prevent the certification of the results of a legitimate election.

 

They were going to do this by overwhelming the security of the Capitol, capturing Mike Pence and a large number of Senators and Representatives, and use them as hostages to prevent the Capitol from being retaken.

 

They believed Trump's lie about a stolen election and hoped the country and military would rally to their cause.  They were idiots, but that doesn't change the fact that they attacked the US Capitol with the intent of preventing the electoral college certification and preventing the transfer of power.

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

And what do you think is being done to the USA right now that isn't damaging?

Investigating and prosecuting those who attempted to prevent the certification of a legitimate election and prevent the peaceful transfer of power comes to mind.  That's the one that's on-topic, but there are other examples.

Numerous off-topic, bickering posts and replies removed.

 

10 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

See, as I explained early in this thread, that's why I prefer not to use the word "insurrection," even though it is correct. It insinuates a next-step that may not be intended or attempted............ a "coup." - - - - - An attempt to overthrow of the government. 

 

But the word "insurrection" means a violent action taken with the goal of changing how the government operates. It doesn't necessarily mean the goal is to replace an existing government. 

 

Technically...... although the word is never used for them.......... the BLM and ANTIFA protests could ALSO correctly be called "insurrections"............. because they both clearly desired to affect a change in how the government operates. 

 

So no, "insurrection" and "overthrow"............ do not necessarily go together! They CAN, but they don't have to. 

 

Cheers! 

So by your definition voting could also be called insurrection, that's pretty convenient. 

2 hours ago, Kenneth White said:

I am not your aid. It only takes a little common sense and looking beyond the surface (lamestream media) to see the 2020 election was stolen.

In other words, you have no credible evidence.  Just as Trump and his legal team have no credible evidence.

 

However repeating the lie gives Trump lots of media attention and motivates gullible fools to keep contributing to Trump's "legal fund", so why would he stop lying?

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In other words, you have no credible evidence.  Just as Trump and his legal team have no credible evidence.

 

However repeating the lie gives Trump lots of media attention and motivates gullible fools to keep contributing to Trump's "legal fund", so why would he stop lying?

Did not Al Gore, Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams not all contest elections? 

 

After years, Clinton and Abrams are still claiming their elections were stolen, yet they are celebrated. Abrams is routinely introduced in the media as the Governor of Georgia. 

 

Why is it okay for them to do it, yet it's the end of democracy when Trump does it? 

28 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In other words, you have no credible evidence.  Just as Trump and his legal team have no credible evidence.

 

However repeating the lie gives Trump lots of media attention and motivates gullible fools to keep contributing to Trump's "legal fund", so why would he stop lying?

At this point it appears that this committee is doing it's level best to attack Trump's character and not present evidence of seditious intent so far however this committee is focused on criminal charges for whatever they can tweak out from AG.

14 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

At this point it appears that this committee is doing it's level best to attack Trump's character and not present evidence of seditious intent so far however this committee is focused on criminal charges for whatever they can tweak out from AG.

I was not aware Trump had any character to attack.

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did not Al Gore, Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams not all contest elections? 

 

After years, Clinton and Abrams are still claiming their elections were stolen, yet they are celebrated. Abrams is routinely introduced in the media as the Governor of Georgia. 

 

Why is it okay for them to do it, yet it's the end of democracy when Trump does it? 

AFAIK Clinton etc. did not incite their supporters to march on the Capitol to overturn the result. See the difference?

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

I was not aware Trump had any character to attack.

So why then are they trying to attack it? Nothing new here, all it does is cast doubt on the legitimacy of the bigger issue which should be trying to show proof of intent which is the bar needed to secure a conviction. This could turn into another big nothing burger flop for the dems.

1 minute ago, bocaBob said:

So why then are they trying to attack it? Nothing new here, all it does is cast doubt on the legitimacy of the bigger issue which should be trying to show proof of intent which is the bar needed to secure a conviction. This could turn into another big nothing burger flop for the dems.

Because the man is a slimeball. A guy who was billing the American taxpayer about $900,000 every time he played a round of golf during a pandemic, you are coming the raw prawn.

AFAIK during a criminal trial, the character of the defendant is questioned. The committee is just laying the foundations.

You may be right, it comes to nothing. Which will be a sad commentary on how thoroughly Trump has corrupted everything he touches in America.

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Did not Al Gore, Jill Stein, Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams not all contest elections? 

 

After years, Clinton and Abrams are still claiming their elections were stolen, yet they are celebrated. Abrams is routinely introduced in the media as the Governor of Georgia. 

 

Why is it okay for them to do it, yet it's the end of democracy when Trump does it? 

Al Gore conceeded.

 

Hillary Clinton expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the election due to Russian interference but did not challenge the result.

 

Stacey Abrams had legitimate concerns about running against the then Secretary of State of Georgia who had purged Georgia's voter rolls prior to the election:

 

"It's true that during his eight-year tenure in that role, Kemp's office canceled over 1.4 million voter registrations, with low-income and minority Georgians most likely to have their registrations removed, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Over 668,000 of those registrations were canceled in 2017."  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/11/18/fact-check-partly-false-claim-gov-brian-kemp-and-2018-election/6327447002/

 

You'll have to provide evidence regarding your Jill Stein claim. 

 

None of these people claimed the election was fraudulent before it was conducted and none made any attempt to prevent the certification of the election results.

 

It is potentially "the end of democracy when Trump does it" because of the way he did it.  His continued attempts to undermine confidence in elections without any evidence is an ongoing threat to democracy.

31 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

At this point it appears that this committee is doing it's level best to attack Trump's character and not present evidence of seditious intent so far however this committee is focused on criminal charges for whatever they can tweak out from AG.

Day 2 of the hearings was mostly about Trump's own people telling him he had lost the election and all the conspiracy theories were complete nonsense.  The point of it all was that Trump knew or should have known that there was no election fraud that could have changed the outcome.  By him continuing to repeat the rigged claim, Trump was committing fraud and fundraising off of it. 

31 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

At this point it appears that this committee is doing it's level best to attack Trump's character and not present evidence of seditious intent so far however this committee is focused on criminal charges for whatever they can tweak out from AG.

This committee has had sworn testimony providing first hand accounts of Trump's actions following the election.  How is that attacking his character?

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Because the man is a slimeball. A guy who was billing the American taxpayer about $900,000 every time he played a round of golf during a pandemic, you are coming the raw prawn.

AFAIK during a criminal trial, the character of the defendant is questioned. The committee is just laying the foundations.

You may be right, it comes to nothing. Which will be a sad commentary on how thoroughly Trump has corrupted everything he touches in America.

OKAY! Now you are getting it.

Of course, you can't have a made-for-tv show trial without a menacing villain to defame, frame, blame, and mercilessly maim, and there was never any doubt as to who that would be: President Trump, the Great MAGA Man, who haunts the Establishment mind's blob thoughts still. They want to shut him down and his MAGA movement from running and winning another election. This is SOP, everyone knows this.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So by your definition voting could also be called insurrection, that's pretty convenient. 

Please read again. I said "a violent action," so voting wouldn't fit the description. And I would have assumed that "contrary to the normal processes" would have been automatically understood, therefore not need to be explained. Guess I was wrong, Hmmm? 

 

Cheers! 

If the evidence can support criminal charges and conviction as claimed then indict! Why all this useless waste of time theater, other than to beat up Trump some more. Charge him....get on with it! Quit wasting everyone's time.

 

https://www.axios.com/2022/06/12/jan-6-committee-indict-trump?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=politics-jan6panel

9 minutes ago, bocaBob said:

OKAY! Now you are getting it.

Of course, you can't have a made-for-tv show trial without a menacing villain to defame, frame, blame, and mercilessly maim, and there was never any doubt as to who that would be: President Trump, the Great MAGA Man, who haunts the Establishment mind's blob thoughts still. They want to shut him down and his MAGA movement from running and winning another election. This is SOP, everyone knows this.

I couldn't give a flying freak about the "MAGA movement."  It's not even an original concept, more like Tea Party II.  But what I do want is for criminals to be held to account.  Trump is a lying, racist, corrupt conman.  The sooner Trump is wearing an orange jumpsuit, the better for American democracy.