Nearly one in three Americans say it may soon be necessary to take up arms against the government

[rudi49jr]

57 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Trump, Pence speeches put stark GOP divide on display

 

Among his proposals, he called for executing drug dealers, sending the homeless to tent cities on the outskirts of cities, and expanding his Southern border wall.

 

Biden joined in — on Twitter — dismissing Trump’s claim to have been a law-and-order president. Referring to the Capitol riot, he tweeted: “I don’t think inciting a mob that attacks a police officer is ‘respect for the law.’ You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-cop – or pro-democracy, or pro-American.”

 

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-government-and-politics-14dad6900059354178c37e49bb445807

Same as all those MAGA nutters who claim they love the constitution so much, and they just want to defend it against ‘the radical left’, while in fact they wipe their @sses with it with what they’re doing. Same as all those evangelicals who claim they are christians, but they prove to be anything but by what they’re doing.

I don’t know if it’s ignorance or arrogance, stubbornness or just plain stupidity, or maybe a combination of all of it, but there seems to be a large group of people in the USA who refuse to face facts and reality, and they have created their very own truth, and their very own reality, and they desperately cling to that no matter what. 

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Point taken, the US military has indeed been involved in quite a few unsavory episodes.

I've been to America many times, there are things Americans do extremely well, others where belief overrules facts and logic. This thread is an illustration.

Perhaps I might have worded my post better by saying the American military exhibits many of the features of a socialist organisation, but perhaps that would not be satisfactory to you either.

I get your point, but you may be a bit off.  The US military as an institution is certainly different from US society at large.  It's not a democracy, but it's certainly not a socialist society.  It's an all-volunteer force, so anyone can leave at anytime (assuming they've completed what they've signed-up for).  Officers run the military and they are not elected, rather selected.  Everyone follows orders.  But there are some socialist aspects in that most needs are provided for, e.g., housing, food, where to shop, recreation, child's education, medical/dental, etc. 

 

The US military can't necessarily be blamed for what it does overseas because that's the decision made by civilian leaders.  The orders come from the President, SECDEF, NSA, etc.  The US military can't just invade another country on its own.  There have been military atrocities, to be sure, but that's more individual.  And the military can't defy orders.  If the POTUS says invade Russia, that's what they must do.  Hope this makes sense.   

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Point taken, the US military has indeed been involved in quite a few unsavory episodes.

I've been to America many times, there are things Americans do extremely well, others where belief overrules facts and logic. This thread is an illustration.

Perhaps I might have worded my post better by saying the American military exhibits many of the features of a socialist organisation, but perhaps that would not be satisfactory to you either.

Actually your post had me thinking why is it I find this all wrong when it appears to have a lot of credibility? Anyway, it hardly matters now. I take your point, they have a great welfare system that looks after their "members", so who knows? But, as somebody else pointed out, the funding comes from the federal government, not from the military raising taxes on their personnel.

[candide]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Insurrection? lol. It was a riot by a few loons. Anyway, ignoring the hyperbole, what has Biden done that has come close to what Trump may or may not have done?

 

Well he totally screwed up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, sending the region into chaos and pretty much reinstating the Taliban as leaders while simultaneously arming them to the teeth with US weapons that were left behind.

 

So there's that...

 

Biden had a choice to make: either apply the agreement directly negotiated one year before between the Trump administration and the Talibans (without involving the official Afghan government) which was de facto considering the Talibans as the main force in Afghanistan, or start fighting with the Talibans again.

Which choice would you have made? Apply Trump's deal or start another fight?

[rudi49jr]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Insurrection? lol. It was a riot by a few loons. Anyway, ignoring the hyperbole, what has Biden done that has come close to what Trump may or may not have done?

 

Well he totally screwed up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, sending the region into chaos and pretty much reinstating the Taliban as leaders while simultaneously arming them to the teeth with US weapons that were left behind.

 

So there's that...

 

If you had followed the news even a little bit (the hearings of the January 6 committee, for instance), you should know by now that it was quite a bit more than just a riot by a few loons. More and more evidence is coming out that this was a planned effort by Trump and hos cronies to overthrow the results of the election, in order for Trump to stay in power. I would call that insurrectionist, wouldn’t you?

And the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan was a deal Biden inherited from his predecessor Trump, in case you forgot.

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Insurrection? lol. It was a riot by a few loons.

 

A few loons? About 2000 pro-Trump supporters entered the Capitol building, thus far 884 have been charged, 185 have been sentenced.

 

I don't call that a few, neither would any other unbiased observer.

 

Donated to his re-election campaign yet? The one he's using to pay the lawyers who are demanding their money upfront, because they know how trustworthy he is.

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

I get your point, but you may be a bit off.  The US military as an institution is certainly different from US society at large.  It's not a democracy, but it's certainly not a socialist society.  It's an all-volunteer force, so anyone can leave at anytime (assuming they've completed what they've signed-up for).  Officers run the military and they are not elected, rather selected.  Everyone follows orders.  But there are some socialist aspects in that most needs are provided for, e.g., housing, food, where to shop, recreation, child's education, medical/dental, etc. 

 

The US military can't necessarily be blamed for what it does overseas because that's the decision made by civilian leaders.  The orders come from the President, SECDEF, NSA, etc.  The US military can't just invade another country on its own.  There have been military atrocities, to be sure, but that's more individual.  And the military can't defy orders.  If the POTUS says invade Russia, that's what they must do.  Hope this makes sense.   

I think there would be far fewer wars if politicians were compelled to serve in the front lines of any conflict, just saying.......

I forget who said wars are when old men send young men to die.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, bradiston said:

Actually your post had me thinking why is it I find this all wrong when it appears to have a lot of credibility? Anyway, it hardly matters now. I take your point, they have a great welfare system that looks after their "members", so who knows? But, as somebody else pointed out, the funding comes from the federal government, not from the military raising taxes on their personnel.

The military have no choice in where they are posted, USA or offshore, nor where they live, work, how many hours a day/week/month they work. Some in the submarine service submerge when they leave base, work watch about and usually have little idea of where they are at any time and may never see daylight for weeks or months at a time.

 

It matters not where the funding comes from but that the funds are there as a compensation.

[Lacessit]

47 minutes ago, billd766 said:

The military have no choice in where they are posted, USA or offshore, nor where they live, work, how many hours a day/week/month they work. Some in the submarine service submerge when they leave base, work watch about and usually have little idea of where they are at any time and may never see daylight for weeks or months at a time.

 

It matters not where the funding comes from but that the funds are there as a compensation.

I have respect for most military organizations, with a few exceptions. In no way was I attempting to denigrate the US military with my observation they had many socialist features.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night, only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." ( George Orwell )

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I think there would be far fewer wars if politicians were compelled to serve in the front lines of any conflict, just saying.......

I forget who said wars are when old men send young men to die.

I agree with you. IMHO when the civilian government declares a war, then not only the cabinet who made that decision but also all of their families age 12 or over plus their in-laws, brothers and their family should go and be sent to the front line. Younger children should be fostered out or put in care homes until the war is over. 

[Caldera]

Sad to see how this once great country turned to such a polarized hell hole.

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, Caldera said:

Sad to see how this once great country turned to such a polarized hell hole.

An American author, James Lee Burke, predicted Trump's strategy of division and hatred thirty years ago.

He tells his supporters what they want to hear, and has his finger on a dark pulse of American society.

I doubt the figure of one in three, more likely one in ten or twenty.

The irony is, he lies to his supporters and shafts them as equally as anyone else. I don't see him in any courtroom giving character references for any of the Capitol invaders.

[rudi49jr]

Leaked audio: before election day, Bannon said Trump planned to falsely claim victory.

 

No surprise there, Trump had been saying for months that the only way he could lose was if they rigged the election. Just paving the way for his big stolen election lie, getting the MAGA crowd ready to swallow it line, hook and sinker and starting to get them riled up to the point, months later, where they were willing to storm the Capitol for their lord and master.
 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/leaked-audio-steve-bannon-trump-2020-election-declare-victory/

[pomchop]

Remember how Fox and Trumpers initially tried to claim the rioters were ANTIFA and BLM people and not trumpers...as usual they  pushed that garbage with zero evidence...and of course the very same day that this <deleted> was being floated Trump wanted to get rid of the metal detectors and go to the capitol where this armed group of antifa and blm mob would have no doubt shot him...oh but wait, he said these are my people and they aren't here to hurt me....

 

What is wrong with this maga bunch that they can't see or understand that they are lied to and conned over and over...and oh the horror of the Jan 6 committee playing the actual video and audio tapes for all to see and hear , showing text messages and emails, along with first hand testimony of long time trumper REPUBLICANS...in fact most all of those who have testified are republicans...not democrats.....obviously it is all a grand witch hunt and all those videos, audios, text messages emails and testimony are part of a giant democrat conspiracy to frame trump...i mean REALLY?   

[Scott]

False or misleading posts and replies removed.  Continued posting factually incorrect information will earn suspensions.  Unless sources are provided from a credible source for making allegations about election fraud, you will receive a warning.

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Insurrection? lol. It was a riot by a few loons. Anyway, ignoring the hyperbole, what has Biden done that has come close to what Trump may or may not have done?

 

Well he totally screwed up the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, sending the region into chaos and pretty much reinstating the Taliban as leaders while simultaneously arming them to the teeth with US weapons that were left behind.

 

So there's that...

 

It was a few thousand loons, whipped up by Trump's speech, chanting "Hang Mike Pence" and roaming the halls and offices of the Capitol in an attempt to prevent the certification of the Presidential election. 

 

A riot with a purpose; an insurrection.

[heybruce]

21 hours ago, BangkokHank said:

My claim is based on my observations during the vote counting. On election night, when I went to bed, Trump had an insurmountable lead in most, if not all, of the swing states. As I slept, the vote counting was paused in those swing states - to allow the Democrats to figure out how many votes they needed to steal to win the election. Then, during the next few hours, almost all of the remaining votes that came in were for Biden. By the time I woke up the next morning, a mathematics-defying miracle had happened - and Biden had "won" the election. 

 

The reason why even Republicans accepted this sham election was because they didn't like Trump either. He interrupted "business as usual" in Washington, under which there is an agreement between the two parties that they will take turns fleecing the American people every four to eight years - while not doing anything for the country or its people. Trump got in the way of that - by trying to do at least some good for the country.

 

It's not that I think that Trump is a good person or an ideal candidate by any means. But in elections, people can only choose from among the available candidates. And in that election, Trump was infinitely better for the country that Biden was, which most observers would agree with based on Biden's "performance" over the past couple of years.

You exhibit an extreme case of willful ignorance.  Everyone knew that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots and everyone knew that the swing states that didn't start counting absentee ballots until after the election would not finish the count until late at night or the next day.  What happened was predicted well in advance.

[pomchop]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You exhibit an extreme case of willful ignorance.  Everyone knew that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots and everyone knew that the swing states that didn't start counting absentee ballots until after the election would not finish the count until late at night or the next day.  What happened was predicted well in advance.

Trying to get a trumper to actually do a tiny bit of research outside their orbit of conspiracy theories and right wing websites is hopeless.  Above is perfect example that has been reported over and over before the election was even held and was a well known fact by both republicans and dems.  Anyone who still thinks that the election was rigged is living in la la land of trumpism.

 

According to trumpers, dems are dumb as a bucket of mud yet somehow these dumb people managed to pull off a massive nationwide/worldwide conspiracy to rig an election and get 60 mostly repub appointed judges, a slew of republican state election officials, trumps own inner circle, multiple recounts  all to go along with their massive conspiracy.  Wow that is pretty good for a bunch of dumb dems.

[BangkokHank]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You exhibit an extreme case of willful ignorance.  Everyone knew that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots and everyone knew that the swing states that didn't start counting absentee ballots until after the election would not finish the count until late at night or the next day.  What happened was predicted well in advance.

"Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election.

 

Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots? If they had said that, for example, older people are more likely to vote via absentee ballots because they have trouble getting to the polling stations, that would have been plausible. But to suggest that voters for one entire party are more likely to vote by the way that just happens to be easier to cheat with is patently ridiculous. So please, don't try your "everyone knew" with me. You just make yourself look silly.

[bradiston]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You exhibit an extreme case of willful ignorance.  Everyone knew that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots and everyone knew that the swing states that didn't start counting absentee ballots until after the election would not finish the count until late at night or the next day.  What happened was predicted well in advance.

Indeed, Bannon has admitted it was all part of a planned strategy. The use of the staggered counting process, and the lag in counting the mostly Democrat mailed in vote, laid the foundation for the claims of fraud. Anyone still believing otherwise is as guilty of sedition as any of the main players most certainly are.

 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/07/leaked-audio-steve-bannon-trump-2020-election-declare-victory/

[Credo]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

"Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election.

 

Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots? If they had said that, for example, older people are more likely to vote via absentee ballots because they have trouble getting to the polling stations, that would have been plausible. But to suggest that voters for one entire party are more likely to vote by the way that just happens to be easier to cheat with is patently ridiculous. So please, don't try your "everyone knew" with me. You just make yourself look silly.

Since you are posting nonsense, I'll give you a reason.  It's because Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't and have time to stand in line at polling stations.  

 

But when you look more closely, take a look at the number of polling stations in Republican districts and then compare it to Democratic areas and areas with a high minority population.   

 

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election.

Media pushing?? 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/19/republicans-mail-in-voting-trump-398774

 

What about this statement from Brad Raffensperger. 
 

“Georgia is a leader in election access,” said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. “Notwithstanding the pandemic, voters in the Peach State can take advantage of no-excuse absentee ballot voting by mail or through a secure drop box; three weeks of early, in-person voting; or Election Day voting.”

 

[stevenl]

26 minutes ago, Credo said:

Since you are posting nonsense, I'll give you a reason.  It's because Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't and have time to stand in line at polling stations.  

 

But when you look more closely, take a look at the number of polling stations in Republican districts and then compare it to Democratic areas and areas with a high minority population.   

 

And then factor in a pandemic which according to republicans didn't exist so they could go out and vote and a president who recommended to vote in person while his opponent recommended postal voting.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

"Everyone knew" that more Democrats than Republicans would vote using absentee ballots, because the media had been brainwashing people into believing that for weeks before the election. The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election.

 

Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots? If they had said that, for example, older people are more likely to vote via absentee ballots because they have trouble getting to the polling stations, that would have been plausible. But to suggest that voters for one entire party are more likely to vote by the way that just happens to be easier to cheat with is patently ridiculous. So please, don't try your "everyone knew" with me. You just make yourself look silly.

"Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots?"

 

Because Trump claimed, repeatedly and without any proof, that voting by mail is subject to fraud.  He objected to states making it easier to vote by mail during the pandemic, but not because of fraud.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/08/trump-slams-mail-in-voting-says-it-doesnt-work-out-well-for-republicans.html

 

That discouraged Republicans from voting by mail.  Democrats, who were taking the pandemic much more seriously than Republicans, were more likely to vote by mail to avoid crowded polling stations and lines to vote.  In Pennsylvania almost three times as many Democrats voted by mail as Republicans.  https://news.yahoo.com/democrats-voted-republicans-mail-nearly-021800530.html

[bradiston]

In the Brexit vote in the UK, by 10pm on polling day with the ballots closed, it looked like the anti brexit voters had won the day. Come the actual results, turned out the opposite way. The interesting point being, I don't recall any shouts of fraud. It was a bitter blow for the anti Brexiteers, but they took it on the chin, something Trump seems incapable of doing .

[BangkokHank]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Since you are posting nonsense, I'll give you a reason.  It's because Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't and have time to stand in line at polling stations.    

 

Unless you can provide some credible evidence to support your ridiculous claim that Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't, then, according to the rules of this forum, it should be removed as misinformation. Or, as far as I'm concerned, it can be left up for its comedic value. I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

[BangkokHank]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"Can you give me any plausible reason why people from one party would be more likely than the people from another to vote using absentee ballots?"

 

Because Trump claimed, repeatedly and without any proof, that voting by mail is subject to fraud.  He objected to states making it easier to vote by mail during the pandemic, but not because of fraud.  https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/08/trump-slams-mail-in-voting-says-it-doesnt-work-out-well-for-republicans.html

 

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

[jvs]

4 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

You keep going on about this,do you have any proof?

Any?

No court has found any proof,maybe they should hire you to help out?

Or you just are to ignorant to accept the truth,or maybe you just are not smart enough?

Your guy lost big time,get over it!

I hope he will have to pay dearly for the things he did,maybe soon you can visit your

hero in jail.

[Bkk Brian]

12 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

Unless you can provide some credible evidence to support your ridiculous claim that Democrats work for a living and Republicans don't, then, according to the rules of this forum, it should be removed as misinformation. Or, as far as I'm concerned, it can be left up for its comedic value. I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

He was replying in kind to this nonsense post you made:

 

"The media had been preparing the simple-minded people for that because they KNEW that the Democrats were planning to steal the election."

 

Do you have a link to that one?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, BangkokHank said:

Exactly. Voting by mail doesn't work out well for Republicans - because Democrats use it to cheat.

There is no evidence of cheating on a scale that would come close to changing the election results.  The trivial amount of cheating by mail uncovered seemed to be done more by Republicans than Democrats.  https://www.foxnews.com/us/fourth-florida-the-villages-resident-accused-of-voter-fraud

 

Of course Republicans serious about committing election fraud usually do so in more effective ways:  https://news.yahoo.com/3-charged-2020-florida-ghost-153920154.html

 

Trump didn't object to mail-in voting in Florida after it was explained to him that a lot of well-off retirees, who tend to vote Republican, do so by mail in Florida.  Some do so more than once, as indicated above.