It should go without saying that I believe that the folks on J6 who rioted at the capitol should be, and are being, prosecuted for whatever crimes they committed.
But, how is running the house of representatives (1/2 of one of the 3 branches of government) actually an attempt to overthrow the government?
Let's say that the rioters somehow managed to have corralled enough representatives for a vote on certifying the electoral college, and they forced the vote, what then? Can anyone really think that that vote would have been upheld? That the courts wouldn't have overturned it in a heartbeat? That the house wouldn't have gathered again as soon as they left and voted again to certify the election?
Does anyone else understand how it's possible that a couple of hundred unarmed, unprepared, un led, rioters with zero support from anyone else actually posed a temporary threat to the continuity of government, let alone an actual threat to "overthrow" the government?
It's not that hard to condemn what they actually did, and advocate for their punishment, without buying the hysterical bullshit about an "insurrection" or "overthrow" of the federal government.
Even had they somehow managed the feat of overthrowing the federal government, that would still leave the several states in a position to reconstitute the federal government, wouldn't it?
28 comments:
It was literally an attempt to block the naming of Biden as president in an attempt to get Trump installed (when he had factually lost) all based upon lies and false claims from Trump in an attempt to block Biden being named president based on those false claims all the while threatening Pence and others with assassination and all at the invitation of and encouragement by Trump.
That they were inept doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt to stop the election process and overthrow the rightfully elected Biden. How is that NOT an attempt at insurrection or how is Trump's ongoing promotionof this big lie NOT an attempt to undermine our free Republic? And when the MAJORITY of the GOP believes this big lie, how can we NOT treat it as an a serious threat to our nation? And with Trump and Co STILL raisingmoney from usefulidiots based on this Big Lie, how is that NOT a swindle?
What are you not seeing that the majority of us recognizeas plain?
"How is that NOT an attempt at insurrection or how is Trump's ongoing promotionof this big lie NOT an attempt to undermine our free Republic? And when the MAJORITY of the GOP believes this big lie, how can we NOT treat it as an a serious threat to our nation? And with Trump and Co STILL raisingmoney from usefulidiots based on this Big Lie, how is that NOT a swindle?"
Those are all interesting questions. Unfortunately, I see no reason to spend any time on them if you aren't going to answer the actual questions asked in the post.
I think one of them specifically addressed your questions.
"What are you not seeing that the majority of us recognizeas plain?"
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that asking questions about the events of J6 and the actual risks of the day is somehow problematic? That answering questions about the narrative that you're committed to might somehow raise more questions about the narrative?
I recognize the reality of what actually happened that day, and have questions about the narrative pushed regarding that day. Questions that you haven't answered.
Can I assume that you would agree that any attempt to impede or influence the actions of any of the three branches of government (presuming those actions are legal) is an example of an attempt to "undermine" our republic? That any instance of using violence or the threat of violence to influence any of the three branches of government is an "attempt" at insurrection?
I do like how you've gone from decrying J6 as an insurrection to an "inept" "attempt at insurrection".
Exactly who has been arrested since J6 for the attempted assassination of a government official? Who exactly was the government official who was being stalked in order to assassinate?
Who specifically threatened Mike Pence (and the others) with assassination specifically? Who were these mysterious others?
Does it concern you that most in the GOP believe that the election was stolen? Do you see how troublesome and dangerous that can be for a free Republic? How, IF some large number in GOP believe false claims that our elections aren't secure, that some percentage will turn violent over it?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2022/jun/14/most-republicans-falsely-believe-trumps-stolen-ele/
"Does it concern you that most in the GOP believe that the election was stolen? Do you see how troublesome and dangerous that can be for a free Republic? How, IF some large number in GOP believe false claims that our elections aren't secure, that some percentage will turn violent over it?"
How strange. More questions without answering any of the questions asked in the post.
I see no reason to do what you clearly won't, you can answer each and every question directly and specifically, then I'll reciprocate. If not, then that's 100% on you.
"Can I assume that you would agree that any attempt to impede or influence the actions of any of the three branches of government (presuming those actions are legal) is an example of an attempt to "undermine" our republic?"
No. Of course not. We have an obligation to try to influence our government in positive ways... many of which absolutely do not rise to the level of undermining the government. Even civil disobedience is not an effort to undermine the government. Impeding the free flow of traffic, for instance, in an attempt to promote reform is impeding government duties, but it's not an attempt to undermine the government.
But spreading false claims that an election was stolen, that IS literally an attempt to undermine trust in the government. How is it not? The specific details and circumstances matter.
Craig...
"That any instance of using violence or the threat of violence to influence any of the three branches of government is an "attempt" at insurrection?"
No. Any use of violence against people is clearly wrong, but not every instance of violence would be an attempt at insurrection. Civil rights protesters who chose to fight back against violent police, for instance, were not attempting an insurrection, they were trying to influence the police to NOT oppress people. For one example.
Specific circumstances matter, right?
Your first question appears to have some typos or is just unclear...
"how is running the house of representatives (1/2 of one of the 3 branches of government) actually an attempt to overthrow the government?"
How is "running the House..."
?? What are you asking? What do you mean by running the House?
Likewise, your second question is confusing...
"Let's say that the rioters somehow managed to have corralled enough representatives for a vote on certifying the electoral college, and they forced the vote, what then?"
What do you mean... what if the rioters had cornered a majority of the House (but not all of them??) and forced that portion to vote? That would literally be disrupting the certification process.
Craig...
"Can anyone really think that that vote would have been upheld?"
No. It wouldn't. But it still would have been an attempt to undermine and disrupt the government and the appointing of Biden. That they were bound to fail does not make it NOT an insurrection.
All that matters to Dan is that all people everywhere, without true evidence to compel them, must agree with the allegation of "The Big Lie". Because Orange Man Bad.
Dan's a clown.
"No. Of course not."
Are you suggesting that violence or the threat of violence is an acceptable way to influence government?
" Even civil disobedience is not an effort to undermine the government. Impeding the free flow of traffic, for instance, in an attempt to promote reform is impeding government duties, but it's not an attempt to undermine the government."
Again, I'm specifically referring to violence or the direct threat of violence. In other words, is blocking traffic with weapons acceptable?
"Specific circumstances matter, right?"
Yes. The problem is that I'm referring to specific circumstances (threats against courts, threats against police, assassination attempts, doxxing of children), and your trying to divert attention to the violence you try to justify.
You're right, it was poorly worded. Try answering it now.
"But, how is temporarily running the house of representatives (1/2 of one of the 3 branches of government) out of their chamber, actually an attempt to overthrow the government?"
"What do you mean... what if the rioters had cornered a majority of the House (but not all of them??) and forced that portion to vote? That would literally be disrupting the certification process."
Yes. If the small number of unarmed rioters/protesters had miraculously managed to corner enough congressmen to achieve a quorum, and forced a vote to ignore the election results, what would the result of that action have been?
Would it that coerced vote have been irrevocably passed into law?
Would the house have reconvened after the idiots had left of their own accord, and voted to nullify the first (coerced) vote?
Would the Judiciary have stepped in?
Are you really suggesting that one coerced vote on one topic is literally enough to "overthrow" the entire federal government?
Are you really suggesting that POTUS, with all of the access he had to LE, the Military, and the like was seriously thinking that a couple hundred, unarmed, un led, yahoos was really going to "overthrow" the entire federal government?
Do you really think that he and his advisors really thought that they could coerce a vote from the house that would stand up to judicial review?
Are you suggesting that this "disrupting" would have been the same as nullifying, or that it would have been upheld had it miraculously happened?
Are you suggesting that any "disrupting" of the legitimate actions of the federal government is wrong?
"No. It wouldn't."
Exactly. At worst they were making a symbolic gesture that would have had absolutely ZERO affect on anything.
Art,
The problem is that even with some of the new evidence coming out, there still wasn't enough documented voter issues to have changed the outcome.
I think that Dan and his ilk are overreacting to J6, and are incredibly selective in their outrage about other branches of the government being "disrupted" or attempts to disrupt them, As well as the multiple instances of violence and threats of violence being used to influence, disrupt, threaten, and coerce the judicial branch (federal and state) to rule in certain ways without regard to the law.
I think that you and your ilk, are obsessed with trying to fight past battles and with elevating Trump regardless of the damage or potential for damage he brings.
a pox on both of your houses. I'm tired of the bullshit. Trump was/is a shitty candidate and an average president who was confronted with something in COVID that was unprecedented. Clinton and Biden were both shitty candidates, and Biden's been at best ineffective as POTUS.
I keep seeing both data that indicates that the GOP will make gains this Nov, and some rational democrats that understand how empty the DFL cupboard is for 2024. I find '22 and '24 much more interesting , than bitching abut '16, and '20. Clinton's been whining about the election being stolen since '16, Bernie's the one who really had an election stolen, and Trump's been whining about a stolen election since "20. Get over it.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that violence or the threat of violence is an acceptable way to influence government?"
I don't know how many different ways you need to hear this:
No.
No, I do not condone violence.
No, it's not acceptable or good to use even the threat of violence to influence gov't.
No, I do not support violent acts. Nor threats of violence.
No. No. No.
Unlike the perverts in the GOP who follow the big orange pervert, I am opposed to threats of violence and attempted coups, attempted kidnappings or any sort of violence.
AND, like Dr King, I recognize that sometimes, riots are the language of the oppressed an unheard.
BOTH things can be true. I can recognize that those who continue to oppress a people will often likely be met by violence AND I can rightly lay the blame of that violence at its root - the with oppressors - AND I can say it's not right for rioters to get violent or threaten violence.
ALL those things can be true.
"Overreacting to J6..."
OVERREACTING to an attempt by a sitting president to UNDERMINE trust in a valid election and in our election process and to foment violent white supremacists (and others) into marching, chanting death threats to political leaders.
GOOD GOD in heaven have mercy! WHAT does it take for you to grow a spine, open your eyes and recognize the great harm that this corrupt, perverted man and his minions are doing to our nation?! To the world?
But then partisan cowards have always refused to look at the actual harm of actual oppressors and deadly zealots.
Craig...
"At worst they were making a symbolic gesture that would have had absolutely ZERO affect on anything."
Reality:
"In poll after poll, about 70% of Republicans say they don't think Joe Biden is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election."
IF a sizable portion of one party (the party that has the allegiance of armed and plotting white supremacists who've made it clear that they're ready to engage in violence and who LEO recognize as the most significant threat for violence in our nation AND the other conservatives who are sympathetic of/defensive of these white supremacists) no longer thinks that elections are legitimate, some portion of them WILL act with violence and dangerously and try to limit the opposition.
Zero impact? Reality begs to differ.
Open your eyes. Listen to the (more) reasonable conservatives like Cheney, Bush, Barr, Romney, Will, etc, etc.
I want to know how it was an "insurrection" when large numbers of the protesters were actually LET IN the building by the police? Unarmed people are insurrectionists? How are these people even guilty of trespass when the police let them in?
Craig,
"The problem is that even with some of the new evidence coming out, there still wasn't enough documented voter issues to have changed the outcome."
First of all, even if all claims miraculously were actually investigated and found absolutely true...for which there's no intelligent argument or reason to insist they wouldn't be...I would personally prefer at this point that this administration not be forced out in favor of Trump simply because of what an incredible pain in the ass it would be for all involved. But as to your comment I quoted above, the problem is there is no amount of evidence confirmed which would compel the Trump-hating asshats to concede what's been obvious to so many since the election. The biggest morons...I won't name any...OK...like Dan...will still lie about "the Big Lie".
"I think that Dan and his ilk are overreacting to J6...etc.,"
Of course he is. He and they are morons and dishonest morons on top of it. And so are those on that crap-sandwich J6 committee. It's a one-way street with them, and Dan in particular is dedicated to downplaying the wrongs committed by his side, while overstating those committed by anyone else. But then, he's a liar, so...
"I think that you and your ilk, are obsessed with trying to fight past battles and with elevating Trump regardless of the damage or potential for damage he brings."
Just as I would prefer Dan speak for and only refer to himself, I insist the same for me. Don't group me with any "ilk", as I'm not fighting any past battle but only responding to bullshit. The bullshit to which I respond matters, because how the bullshit is resolved...or left unresolved...matters to future events greatly. It's how we got here.
I don't seek to elevate Trump. I speak in the most objective manner with the readiness to be corrected WITH FACTS if my response to crap is mistaken. I've seen no such set of facts to alter my position. If there's any who are deserving of a pox cursed their way, it is to all those who did not respond objectively to Trump about the things which mattered, and maturely ignored all that didn't. Had that occurred by the vast majority of voters from each side of the political divide, we wouldn't be in this mess right now. Trump was clownish and ill-mannered. Boo-freaking-hoo. The nation before and after him was not thriving as it was while he was in the Big Chair and that's not "elevating" him. It's the reality and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
I am very much focused on '22 and '24. But the 2020 election WAS stolen. That's a fact. It would be more surprising if sincere investigation proved otherwise, but it's unlikely we'll ever have enough of that to prove it. No one wants to look. Those that do are smeared. I've heard from too many who won't even bother voting anymore because of it. It's no small thing, and the Dan's of the nation wouldn't have it any other way.
As it stands, I don't know that enough changes have been made to feel confident about '22 or any other election. I hope so. Stupid is ubiquitous and the result of it gave us the Biden administration. Stupid gave us Trump by believing there was no way enough people wanted him over Hillary, but they stepped up in 2020. Will there be enough to thwart stupid in November? We'll see.
Dan continues his moronic drivel. The pervert accusing Trump of being a pervert. Ironic.
So, you oppose violence, yet you support violence in certain circumstances.
When then, will you specifically address and condemn the violence and threats of violence aimed at the judicial branch in attempts to influence judicial rulings and intimidate juries?
"Zero impact?"
Given you answer deficit, you'll no doubt understand why I'm not going to make it worse, but I'll answer this.
Yes, zero impact. The House certified the vote on schedule, Trump left office on schedule, Biden assumed office on schedule, the house continues to sit in session regularly and accomplish very little, the only effect I can see is that it's emboldened left wing protesters to threaten violence, attempt assassination, dox, and try to disrupt the workings of the judicial branch. Encouraged by Chuck Schumer.
Craig...
" you oppose violence, yet you support violence in certain circumstances."
Literally the OPPOSITE of what my words actually said.
Seriously. Take a reading comprehension class before you try to interpret the Bible or news or anyone's, you know, words and stuff.
As to your vague Chuck Schumer charge, I have no idea what you're speaking about because, per normal, you referenced NOTHING. IF you're talking about Schumer saying that the SCOTUS risks sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, well, of course, that is a biblical warning. It's not an adovcacy of violence. It's a recognition that those who seek to oppress often bring their own violence down upon themselves.
Do you think that Dr King was advocating violence when he noted the reality that "rioting is the language of the unheard..."? Of course, he wasn't. Recognizing that violent oppressors often spark violent responses is just noting human nature and it ISN'T advocacy of violence.
But then, maybe you think the prophets and Jesus and others who speak that way are advocating violence.
The reality is that, in OUR nation in this day and time, LEO recognize that we have a real threat of actual violence from conservative white supremacists. These conservative Trump loving MAGA-Hat-wearing extremists have threatened or alluded to civil war and armed rebellion to "take our country back" from being replaced by all these people of color and liberals. It is YOUR side that has had a president and multiple MAGA-supporting representatives advocating violence, fomenting insurrection and encouraging belief in the Big Lie that idiots like Marshal are willing to believe.
It is past time for conservatives with ANY sense of decency and common sense and morality to speak up and denounce the Trump 30% of the nation and the majority of your fellow GOP conservatives. Save your soul.
Actually, I was referring to Schumer saying that Kavanaugh would "pay the price" and not know what hit him. But if Schumer is using biblical language to encourage people to break the law, threaten SCOTUS justices and their children, and to attempt to use violence or the threat of violence to influence SCOTUS, it's still wrong.
Many prophets, and Jesus did advocate violence. Your problem with this line of reasoning, is that I'm not the one who's claimed that I'm a strict pacifist, and the violence is always inappropriate.
Back to the "right wing" crap while left wing folks are actively engaged in a campaign of violence, and threatening more.
"Literally the OPPOSITE of what my words actually said."
the problem is that your words say so many things that seem to contradict yourself, that it's difficult to wade through the bullshit.
You have literally said that you support violence when it's aimed at fighting injustice. Yet you don't seem concerned by the injustice visited on the victims of the violence.
This guy is incredible! Trump can literally "incite" people to act "peacefully and patriotically" and be responsible for a handful of rioters, but Schumer gets a pass for threats and warnings! Dan's a clown.
Art,
Yes, the fact that everyone is ignoring Trump's actual words in this situation is a bit disturbing, although not surprising.
As far as giving Schumer a pass, again not surprising. The fact that the Biden administration and congress allowed the blatant violation of federal law and the silence on the assassination attempt/doxxing of children is deafening.
Craig...
"the problem is that your words say so many things that seem to contradict yourself, that it's difficult to wade through the bullshit."
That's quite a claim. Quite an unsupported claim.
Isn't it more likely that you just didn't understand my words, in spite of what I have and haven't said? You have heard me say that quote from King about riots being the language of the unheard and you then ASSUMED I was defending violence when it comes from black people or the oppressed. But that literally isn't what I said, instead, it's an assumption you erroneously made.
Look, it happens. Just humble yourself and admit it.
Saying "riots are the language of the unheard" is NOT a defense of violence from the oppressed, just an explanation of what can be expected.
ESPECIALLY when I've repeatedly made clear that violence to affect political change is not a moral or rational option.
Like with Jesus, maybe you should use my clear words to help you understand the words that you're less clear on?
And maybe you should do that with Jesus, too.
"That's quite a claim. Quite an unsupported claim."
Given your penchant for unsupported claims, this is almost a compliment.
"Isn't it more likely that you just didn't understand my words, in spite of what I have and haven't said?"
No. It's more likely that I've seen you justify, excuse, ignore, downplay violence when it is done in support of things you value, and seen you exaggerate, over hype, buy into false narratives, and jump to conclusions when you assume things about those you disagree with.
"Like with Jesus, maybe you should use my clear words to help you understand the words that you're less clear on?"
The problem with this comparison is that, unlike Jesus, you are so obfuscatory, vague, disingenuous, and equivocal, that it's hard to find anything clear.
Craig...
"he problem with this comparison is that, unlike Jesus, you are so obfuscatory, vague, disingenuous, and equivocal, that it's hard to find anything clear. "
Not for those who have ears to hear and minds to reason.
We read you loudly and clearly, Dan. We have for quite some time. Your tap-dancing doesn't change that.
And Dan goes for the passive aggressive cheap shot instead of answering the multitude of questions that make up his increasingly large deficit.
Post a Comment