Thought for the Day

[filghy2]

And I know that Trump said nothing whatsoever to encourage rioting - not from my friends but because I watched the speech, which you could do just as easily to assuage your doubts on the matter. The man called for a peaceful protest, quite clearly, there's no gray area, no conviction forthcoming, sorry.

Your whole argument relies on focussing narrowly on a few words out of the context of the situation and ignoring everything else he did and said over the preceding months. If someone from the mafia came to your business and said "Nice place you have here: pity if something was to happen to it" would you interpret that as concern for your welfare?

If Trump is so innocent, why have he and his henchman gone to such lengths to block any investigation of what happened? Why did an unprecedented number of his own party members vote for his impeachment? Why did Mitch McConnell say this afterwards:
"There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags and screaming their loyalty to him."

If Trump wanted only a peaceful demonstration then why does all the evidence we have indicate that he did nothing once he saw what was happening, apart from belatedly asking them to go home? If it's not true that he stonewalled the response and was actually pleased then why has he been blocking the evidence from coming out?

[Nick Danger]

You went pretty close. You have also supported extra-legal violence on the pretext of preserving order which is pretty much how the fascists started out in Italy and Germany.

It's interesting you reference the nazis (though of course any garden-variety liberal will eventually get around to using the n-word as he finds his other arguments shattering incessantly against the immovable wall of objective truth), because I was just thinking this morning as I was perusing some of the usual spooky "wokeness" haunting the liberal media these days, about how much Generation Z reminds me of the Hitler Youth. They have that same glassy-eyed stare, they're all repeating the same nonsensical mantra over and over again, they're 100% immune to logic or arguments of proportion, totally disengaged from any opinion on practical matters and unable to deviate from their hivemind defense of some surreal ideal they can't verbally define once the conversation extends beyond the usual party rhetoric. They're brainwashed, no question about it. By socialist educators. Children of the Corn anyone?

Ironically (for you), the current Democratic Party of the USA fits almost the EXACT dictionary definition of a fascist regime, minus the nationalism. Autocratic Government? Check. Dictatorial Leader? Check. Severe Economic and Social Regimentation? Check. Forcible Suppression of Opposition? Double Check.

If our current President ever displays even the slightest degree of patriotism or love of country, we may in future decades look up the word "fascist" in the dictionary and literally see a picture of Joe Biden.

As usual, you've got the economics the wrong way around. If the government spends money on building something that does not serve a socially-productive purpose that is a waste of real resources which can't be used for something else. If the government makes a transfer payment that does not use up real resources - purchasing power is just transferred to someone else. You can argue about whether they are a deserving recipient, but that's a different issue.

Incidentally, why did you choose your profile picture?. It always seems unintentionally appropriate to me, because is basically screams "delusional idiot".

Let me make sure I'm understanding you, Flighty. If we spend money on, let's say, a nuclear weapon, which I'm sure we can both agree serves no socially-productive purpose, that is categorically a waste of resources? What if it's the only thing keeping Russia or China from nuking us into oblivion? Wasteful? I'm not convinced of your economics expertise, Flighty. Convince me. And try to make your argument less Googly than usual.

Far as my profile picture, no particular meaning there. I liked the movie Mystery Men and realized that between the picture, the signature, and the description, I could create a Sphinx theme that might give someone a chuckle - me if no one else.

Personal anecdotes are definitely his 'go to' strategy. It's always a handy distraction when the overall evidence doesn't support your argument. As we know, people who compile inconvenient data are part of that giant left-wing conspiracy.

More generally, it's part of his 'flooding the zone with shit' strategy - put up such a blizzard of nonsense that people get tired of rebutting it. Then you can tell yourself that you are invincible in argument, which is probably his real objective.

In this case my argument was that Joe Biden is senile. Do you REALLY think I can't make that case without personal anecdotes? If so, just say the word and step back from your computer.

[Nick Danger]

Not everyone who was there is your friend Tony. Just like not every 79 year old is your dad. There were people there who wanted to attack lawmakers and had telegraphed their plans in advance. Anyone who was there to protest the election was a dishonest moron. There never was any evidence of widespread voter fraud and Trump could not even keep his story straight about how it took place. The spate of frivolous lawsuits his cohorts filed were enough to make me question their sanity.

Trump's phone call to Raffensperger was about as improper as any official phone call I've heard. He was threatening him with potential liability for certifying his loss in Georgia. He kept insisting there was fraud to the tune of tens of thousands of votes without specifying the basis of his knowledge or any other details. I know you operate in a fact free universe but this was someone who was operating with the intent to spread misinformation to overturn an election he lost fair and square. He was using the power of his office to threaten someone performing his constitutional duty. If his morally bankrupt actions violated laws he should be prosecuted.

You say you never said Jan. 6 was a legit response. Response to what? Votes count just like dead children count even if you cover your eyes and ears.

I'm gonna tell you what I honestly think about Jan. 6, Bronco, and I'm going to try real hard as I do so to remain non-partisan.

First of all I don't think Trump is very smart. I think he's a great leader BECAUSE he's not very smart. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" That's the kind of leadership I personally respond to.

Reason I bring that up is that I really don't think an argument can be made that Trump is smart enough to know how to start a riot. I don't think he's even smart enough to realize that he has the ability to start a riot. But he's got a huge ego, and it was hurt by the election loss. He wanted to stir people up. He wanted to make a scene. He wanted to stand there and soak in that energy from a crowd of his dutiful admirers. And he wanted it to be LOUD.

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.

I think it was very much a spontaneous crowd response to an untenable level of emotion - both hero worship, and anger. When Democrats lose they cry. When Republicans lose they get angry.

And whether or not Trump is a very stable genius, he was at least smart enough not to say anything incriminating on that day, or before that day, or after that day - not one single thing that can be legally construed as inciting a riot. Beyond that, I genuinely don't think that was his intention. He was just feeling the love of the crowd and he wanted more, and more, and more, until it became too much. That's what I really think.

[Jericho]

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.

Having seen a clip from a Trump rally on a previous thread, yeah.

[Laphroaig]

First of all I don't think Trump is very smart. I think he's a great leader BECAUSE he's not very smart. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" That's the kind of leadership I personally respond to.

"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...

[Nick Danger]

"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.

[filghy2]

President not need smart. President need strong. Advisors need smart.

You somehow missed the fact that Trump didn't listen to any advice that went against his impulses, at least not for very long. Everyone who tried to tell him what he didn't want to hear got sacked, and in the end he was surrounded by yes people.

[filghy2]

But a riot? First of all let's look at the subtext here - do you honestly think the people rioting were trying to take over the government? Do you think they thought that by taking over a building, they would suddenly be running the country and have the ability to alter the election results? Do you think Trump thought that? Of course not. Even the stupidest American is at least peripherally aware that government doesn't emanate from a building.

You are overlooking one obvious key point. Trump clearly believed that Mike Pence could and should have used his position to refuse to certify the state election results. In that case I understand it would have come down to a state-by-state vote in Congress, which would have given Republicans a small majority. So there was a possible quasi-legal route to overturn the election outcome if all Republicans had gone along with it.

Trump clearly wanted to fire up his supporters to put pressure on Pence and other Republicans in Congress. As he's a sociopath I doubt he cared how it was done. As you say, he knows enough to say the right words to create a veneer of deniability, but he also knows how to make the signal clear to those attuned to it.

Your argument that it was a spontaneous riot is a risible piece of revisionism that requires us to ignore all the people who turned up with various weapons and other suitable gear, as well as all the internet chatter before the event. Again, if it's true then why are the Trumpists so desperate to block any investigation?

[filghy2]

"I like stupid people in charge" is quite the take...

Some folks like their elected representatives to be just like them.

[broncofan]

As you say, he knows enough to say the right words to create a veneer of deniability, but he also knows how to make the signal clear to those attuned to it.

I agree with what you're saying but I'm not even sure "to those attuned to it" is necessary because he can be very clumsy and obvious. The average person makes an excuse like that and doesn't get a break. People who say "copyright infringement not intended" or who draft contracts with disclaimers like "none of this should be construed to mean x" and the rest of the contract goes into detail about how it does actually mean x, should be understood as x, and is undeniably x generally aren't as clever as they think they are.

The question most honest people ask is what does he want, what does he mean, and what is he trying to accomplish. There's also this trick slippery people use which you pointed out above which to use words of negation that are contradicted by everything else they are saying. These laws don't tend to talk about "net" incitement of violence....I'm waiting for a courtroom drama about a killer who points his gun at someone and says "I am not acting volitionally nor with malice aforethought, furthermore I would fail the M'Naghten test bc I don't know the character and wrongulness of my actions" then pulls the trigger.