Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

you have to couch their actions in what their mindset was at the time.

They're free to bring that up at their plea bargain. Feeling that Trump won does not justify an insurrection. There is no separate penal code for "stealing over $1,000 but believing it was yours to begin with". There is no separate crime for "punching a guy in the face because you thought he fucked your wife, but it turns out he didn't". Barring self defense, there is no "sniping a stranger from across the street is a felony, but it's only a misdemeanor if you thought he was a drug dealer even though he wasn't and you had no proof or evidence".

You're allowed to feel whatever you want. There is a word for people who use their feelings to excuse crimes. The word is "criminal". The people who used their feelings to justify their actions did so for one of two reasons:
1) while pleading guilty for a reduced sentence, which is still pleading guilty, or
2) pleading insanity, because they could not tell fact from fiction.

So besides you defending these terrorists, yes you are, you're also (intentionally?) perverting the main issue. "Who won the election" is not an opinion. It is not a feeling. It is an objective result. Saying "baroque was the best musical style" is an opinion. Saying "it started in 1974" is objectively false. Saying "blue is my favorite color" is an opinion. Saying "the color blue is caused by sound" is objectively false. Saying "Trump should have won" is a feeling. Saying "Trump did win" is not a feeling. It's a statement of fact that is, and was at the time, objectively false. They had no evidence, other than Trump's word, and he lied.

They were wrong. They are criminals. Fuck their feelings. Stop defending terrorism.

[D3thray]

You do realize that trying to break into any secured area, whether it is a police station, military base or any other place that is designated as a Federally Secure area, like the Capital building during a session of Congress can get a person shot. The Capital police do have a right to use deadly force if needed, much like if you charged a military installation with the intent to do harm.

The moment the crowd chanted "Hang Mike Pence!" is all the evidence the Capital police need to use deadly force against anyone trying to break into a secure area as it is a direct threat against the then current Vice President. The moment they erected working gallows is all the evidence the Capital police need to use deadly force against anyone trying to break into the Capital building. The crowd is lucky that more weren't shot.

Sorry but not sorry. She got exactly the same result that is expected from a person trying to subvert an election by force. Using force to change an election or using force for political aims is the literal definition of a terrorist which is what she, and the rest of the insurrectionists, are. TERRORISTS!!.

They are not simple rioters, they are not simple protesters. Each person who entered the Capital building the intent to change the election through force is a terrorist plain and simple. If you are arguing against ANY of these points, YOU are a terrorist sympathizer and will be labeled as such from now on.

I watched the raw videos the news shown. I watched and read a large amount of the personal videos that the terrorists posted on their social media pages. Each one of them had the goal of using violence to subvert a legitimate election. It doesn't matter what they believe. It doesn't matter what they wish for. The election was legitimate and those people who stormed the Capital building are TERRORISTS because of it. They couldn't handle the fact that they voted for a loser, whom was a loser his ENTIRE life, and couldn't let their ego go.

We want to be very careful here because there is an argument to be made that they’re political prisoners and political prosecutions and it’s not entirely baseless. I’m not saying I think that’s the case, but the actions we take regarding these rioters need to be more than above board. So yes, their state of mind absolutely matters.

And I’m sorry but was there an attempted murder charge somewhere in there that I missed? We’re certainly paying a lot of attention to how the representatives, senators, and police felt, and it certainly seems reasonable that they felt they were under attack. But from the viewpoint of the rioters, was that the intent? Because I’d have thought there’d be some kind of charges indicating that by now if it were the case.

[Kaleredar]

Which is why I said believed. They’re wrong of course, but you have to couch their actions in what their mindset was at the time. This is pretty established legal precedent for determining how serious a crime is or even if one has been committed at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I did not say they were attempting a coup. In fact they felt they were preventing a coup. Kind of the opposite.

And the Germans in world war 2 didn't think they were murdering jews, they thought they were saving Germany.

[Edge-]

We want to be very careful here because there is an argument to be made that they’re political prisoners and political prosecutions and it’s not entirely baseless.

It literally is entirely baseless. The only people shilling this fictional propaganda are the likes of Greene and Gosar and Gaetz and Boebert. That's your company on this topic.

I’m not saying I think that’s the case

But you're arguing that it could be the case, despite that it's not.

How are they "political" prisoners? What's "political" about many who are in prison waiting trial?

and it certainly seems reasonable that they felt they were under attack.

Because they literally were.

But from the viewpoint of the rioters, was that the intent?

To stop the certification of a "fraudulent" (it was legal, they're just retarded) election, kidnap members of Congress and the Vice President, and keep the Trump administration in office for four more years.

[Machismo]

Which is why I said believed. They’re wrong of course, but you have to couch their actions in what their mindset was at the time. This is pretty established legal precedent for determining how serious a crime is or even if one has been committed at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I did not say they were attempting a coup. In fact they felt they were preventing a coup. Kind of the opposite.

They were wrong. Period.

We knew they were 2wrong before they did it, and they were simply ignoring evidence.

They were attempting a coup. They wanted to unseat and prevent free and fair elections, because their guy lost.

At this point, you're defending flat-Earthers, and saying we need to hear them out.

- - - Updated - - -

We want to be very careful here because there is an argument to be made that they’re political prisoners and political prosecutions and it’s not entirely baseless. I’m not saying I think that’s the case, but the actions we take regarding these rioters need to be more than above board. So yes, their state of mind absolutely matters.

And I’m sorry but was there an attempted murder charge somewhere in there that I missed? We’re certainly paying a lot of attention to how the representatives, senators, and police felt, and it certainly seems reasonable that they felt they were under attack. But from the viewpoint of the rioters, was that the intent? Because I’d have thought there’d be some kind of charges indicating that by now if it were the case.

It's not an argument based on reality.

That's like saying the dude who ambushes a police officer, and shoots him in the head, is a political prisoner when they arrest him.

If you want to be so concerned about the viewpoint of fascists and racists, be our guest. But, don't get pissy when people equate you to such, as you are choosing to associate with them.

[D3thray]

God, Endus, you're making me get on a computer because responding to this on a phone is a pain.

And that "framing" is a lie. It's rooted in fascism and misanthropy and celebration of violence. It's a fantasy story told by fascists to fascists, to pat each other on the back for being fascists.

So that "framing" still identifies the perpetrators of the January 6 insurrection as violent fascists with malicious intent. You're just making us go one step deeper into exploring how they justify being that way, to themselves. It doesn't change the facts.

Of course it doesn't change the facts. Not to be too cliché about it but the facts don't matter, they're not what is at issue here. I know, I know, the hackles are rising here but there's an explanation forthcoming, keep reading.

I mean, you're lying about the facts of what happened. You're rejecting the full context.

Not sure what lie or rejection you're talking about unless we're talking about completely different things.

Funny thing; reality is objective. Condemning us for recognizing that is certainly, I guess, a take.

And here's the explanation: no, reality is never objective, its always subjective because its always filtered thru your personal perspective. There is no such thing as a neutral arbiter of truth. Reality is your personal interpretation of facts based upon your experience. Not to be too philosophical here because that's not the point, but you have to consider things outside your perspective to understand how... (continued below)

Two contradictory things about the same specific events can't both be true at once.

...two seemingly contradictory things about the same specific events can both be true at once. The Capitol police were defending against fascism. The rioters were fighting against fascism. Both statements are true depending on viewpoint. And here-in lies the rub, what do we do about that? If the rioters succeeded then does the framing become that the Capitol police were protecting fascism? 'History is written by the victors' is more than just a glib aphorism, it plays out all the time. I don't have some special insight here, but I try my best to give deference to all viewpoints. Alot of the time it is actually possible to please everybody with a little bit of understanding. Which is why I say be careful about those false dichotomies and you'll often find either/or becomes both/and. Which is why I say... (continued below)

Your subjectively-preferred falsehoods are not a valid counter-argument to the facts of what happened. You don't get to claim equal credence for lies and truth.

...you're not good at differentiating between the two. Which is ok because most people aren't, and I certainly am not claiming to be any more capable. Trump riling up his base by questioning the election integrity resulting in January 6th was monumentally stupid. Trust in election integrity matters more than the actual integrity itself. Which is also why dismissing so many of those resulting lawsuits on standing versus actually ruling on merit was equally monumentally stupid. As soon as Trump started that ball rolling we needed to be really above-board and actually consider the claims on his behalf even if some would consider them baseless. Not doing so also eroded trust in election integrity. Then you had idiots like Nancy Pelosi actually asking the military generals not to obey Trump before power was transferred which was actually seditious. I don't think that was her intent, I think she's just stupid, but some prosecutor somewhere could probably make a case out of that alone.

So you see there were alot of factors that went into January 6th, more than I've stated. That's why the various perspectives matter. And for the sake of cohesion alone if nothing else, its important to take those perspectives seriously. So no I don't have a preferred falsehood or even a preferred truth for that matter. I just don't want a group of people jeering over the 'losers' about how they have the 'facts' behind them when the tables could so easily have turned the other way. Its pompous and short-sighted, not to mention pretty horrible when talking about a dead woman who probably thought she was on the 'right' side no matter how 'mistaken' others think she may have been. I'm not particularly religious but there's a very appropriate saying amongst Christians, 'there but for the Grace of God go we'.

Edit: this really is a reply to everyone else as well @Edge- @Beefhammer @Breccia @Kaleredar @Machismo I've said all I'm going to say about it, I'd just be repeating versions of this to you at this point

[Machismo]

God, Endus, you're making me get on a computer because responding to this on a phone is a pain.

Of course it doesn't change the facts. Not to be too cliché about it but the facts don't matter, they're not what is at issue here. I know, I know, the hackles are rising here but there's an explanation forthcoming, keep reading.

Not sure what lie or rejection you're talking about unless we're talking about completely different things.

And here's the explanation: no, reality is never objective, its always subjective because its always filtered thru your personal perspective. There is no such thing as a neutral arbiter of truth. Reality is your personal interpretation of facts based upon your experience. Not to be too philosophical here because that's not the point, but you have to consider things outside your perspective to understand how... (continued below)

...two seemingly contradictory things about the same specific events can both be true at once. The Capitol police were defending against fascism. The rioters were fighting against fascism. Both statements are true depending on viewpoint. And here-in lies the rub, what do we do about that? If the rioters succeeded then does the framing become that the Capitol police were protecting fascism? 'History is written by the victors' is more than just a glib aphorism, it plays out all the time. I don't have some special insight here, but I try my best to give deference to all viewpoints. Alot of the time it is actually possible to please everybody with a little bit of understanding. Which is why I say be careful about those false dichotomies and you'll often find either/or becomes both/and. Which is why I say... (continued below)

...you're not good at differentiating between the two. Which is ok because most people aren't, and I certainly am not claiming to be any more capable. Trump riling up his base by questioning the election integrity resulting in January 6th was monumentally stupid. Trust in election integrity matters more than the actual integrity itself. Which is also why dismissing so many of those resulting lawsuits on standing versus actually ruling on merit was equally monumentally stupid. As soon as Trump started that ball rolling we needed to be really above-board and actually consider the claims on his behalf even if some would consider them baseless. Not doing so also eroded trust in election integrity. Then you had idiots like Nancy Pelosi actually asking the military generals not to obey Trump before power was transferred which was actually seditious. I don't think that was her intent, I think she's just stupid, but some prosecutor somewhere could probably make a case out of that alone.

So you see there were alot of factors that went into January 6th, more than I've stated. That's why the various perspectives matter. And for the sake of cohesion alone if nothing else, its important to take those perspectives seriously. So no I don't have a preferred falsehood or even a preferred truth for that matter. I just don't want a group of people jeering over the 'losers' about how they have the 'facts' behind them when the tables could so easily have turned the other way. Its pompous and short-sighted, not to mention pretty horrible when talking about a dead woman who probably thought she was on the 'right' side no matter how 'mistaken' others think she may have been. I'm not particularly religious but there's a very appropriate saying amongst Christians, 'there but for the Grace of God go we'.

The facts do matter, and the fascists are against the facts. They ignored facts, and they ignored reality.

The facts don't give a shit about the feelings of snowflake fascists. The rioters were not fighting against fascism, they were fighting against their own willful ignorance and imaginary narratives. Nobody is obligated to pretend they were right, or justified.

This is why nobody cares if flat-Earthers want to continue believing in things that are objectively false.

Hitler also thought he was on the right side. Defend him, next.

- - - Updated - - -



It's simple, you're just trying to defend people who were objectively wrong in their beliefs. They believed falsehoods, and continued to push those falsehoods.

2+2=5 in their minds.

[D3thray]

The facts do matter, and the fascists are against the facts. They ignored facts, and they ignored reality.

The facts don't give a shit about the feelings of snowflake fascists. The rioters were not fighting against fascism, they were fighting against their own willful ignorance and imaginary narratives. Nobody is obligated to pretend they were right, or justified.

This is why nobody cares if flat-Earthers want to continue believing in things that are objectively false.

Hitler also thought he was on the right side. Defend him, next.

- - - Updated - - -



It's simple, you're just trying to defend people who were objectively wrong in their beliefs. They believed falsehoods, and continued to push those falsehoods.

2+2=5 in their minds.

/10characters

And for the sake of cohesion alone...

[Machismo]

/10characters

Nah, fuck that. There's no need to pander to fascists and their delusions. If someone refuses to believe basic facts, and wants to get violent, then they should be handled accordingly.

If you want to buddy around with fascists and racists, be my guest. But, don't get upset when people judge you accordingly.

[postman1782]

Pretty sure fascism requires militants. If those people were militants, they’re the mostly poorly armed militants I’ve seen carry that name.

They had guns, bombs, molotov cocktails, thousands of rounds of ammo, and literally an arsenal in a fucking hotel that was close to the capitol building. To say they were poorly armed, is bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -

Fucking hope not. He’s damaged goods now, somebody else needs to take up the torch.

- - - Updated - - -



Dude I don’t have to put her on a pedestal to think she shouldn’t have been shot, don’t you start straw-manning too.

Nope, if I were a cop inside there, there would have been hundreds more dead. They are nothing but fucking terrorists that were looking to kill elected officials.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you ignoring the capital tour the day before and communications with lawmakers? But yes, 9lease link me those FBI files.

Don't forget the bullhorn lady that was directing terrorists on how to find lawmakers. She was giving detailed directions to lawmakers and how to get to them.

[Vegas82]

Which is why I said believed. They’re wrong of course, but you have to couch their actions in what their mindset was at the time. This is pretty established legal precedent for determining how serious a crime is or even if one has been committed at all.

- - - Updated - - -



I did not say they were attempting a coup. In fact they felt they were preventing a coup. Kind of the opposite.

Their feeling are irrelevant. You inability to realize this is just sad.

[postman1782]

Pretty ironic, the punisher would kill him for being a criminal. Yet he wears his mark like a badge of honor.

There is a reason they changed that Marvel changed Punisher's logo.

[Endus]

And here's the explanation: no, reality is never objective, its always subjective because its always filtered thru your personal perspective.

Denying objective reality is an argument that you think everyone is literally delusional, in the clinical sense.

That's a ridiculous argument and doesn't deserve further consideration beyond noting that it is ridiculous.

The Capitol police were defending against fascism. The rioters were fighting against fascism. Both statements are true depending on viewpoint.

This is the lie, right here.

The Capitol Police were defending against violent extremists; they didn't care what their ideological position was, they cared that the people under their protection (the members of Congress) were being put at risk by the directed violent threats by said attackers.

And the people invading the Capitol were not in any way "fighting against fascism", ideologically. They were fighting against democracy. In an explicitly fascistic way, and for fascist principles. If they're too stupid to recognize that, then that just means they're stupid, ignorant fascists, but fascism has always exploited the stupid and gullible. I don't care what lies or stupidity they used to claim otherwise; repeatedly stating wrong things does not make them true.

And here-in lies the rub, what do we do about that? If the rioters succeeded then does the framing become that the Capitol police were protecting fascism? 'History is written by the victors' is more than just a glib aphorism, it plays out all the time.

The aphorism exists because those "victors" will lie and propagandize their victory to frame themselves as the heroes, no matter what they did or why they did it.

Not because that propaganda was truth. It remains, objectively, a lie. One that nearly always collapses on future historical examination of the period; because this horseshit never stands the test of time.

And all you're doing here is pushing that same kind of propaganda, pushing "both-sides" nonsense, denying objective truth's very existence, and so on.

[gondrin]

We want to be very careful here because there is an argument to be made that they’re political prisoners and political prosecutions and it’s not entirely baseless. I’m not saying I think that’s the case, but the actions we take regarding these rioters need to be more than above board. So yes, their state of mind absolutely matters.

And I’m sorry but was there an attempted murder charge somewhere in there that I missed? We’re certainly paying a lot of attention to how the representatives, senators, and police felt, and it certainly seems reasonable that they felt they were under attack. But from the viewpoint of the rioters, was that the intent? Because I’d have thought there’d be some kind of charges indicating that by now if it were the case.

First off, to be a political prisoner, you would have to be jailed for your viewpoints. That would like if Ted Cruz or Rand Paul said something about not liking Biden's policies and he had them jailed. I would be right outside of that jail protesting against Biden then even though I don't like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul as it would be a massive issue. This is something that Trump did actively look into doing to reporters for reporting things he didn't like.

Second, as I stated in that post, the government has the right to use deadly force against anyone that breaks into a secure facility WITHOUT warning. Most times they won't. Even if they ask you to leave, most times you'll just be arrested and go from there. But if you resist, if you continue to go forward with your actions, they are authorized to use deadly force against ANY intruder, no explanations needed. This is true of military bases, federally sensitive areas, local police stations and the like.

Think of this, the rioters over the summer that ransacked the police stations could have been shot while in the middle of doing so and the police would have been justified for doing it.

The intent of the rioters was to stop the count from going through. They thought it was a few states with some funny numbers. However, much like if you took a friend to someplace and he decided to rob it without telling you and you then drive him somewhere, you would ALSO been held for that crime. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse for breaking it.

Question I always have for people who even remotely try to excuse the events there or downplay it is this:

If this were 2017 and a bunch of left wing zealots decided to ransack the Capital building screaming "Hang Mike Pence!!!!" for the sole purpose of trying to overthrow a legitimately elected president, would you be saying the same thing if the events played out the same way(someone got shot and killed, multiple police got injured or killed)? Would you be saying those people are political prisoners? I know I sure wouldn't. I would still call them terrorists and insurrectionists.

Because that is what they are.

[Nastard]

I think few people believe the election was ACTUALLY stolen. It's just the same bullshit sports fans pull when their team loses and they blame it on the ref conspiring against their team even when there's no evidence of it. Whatever it takes to deny the reality that your team sucks and was beaten by a superior opponent. Then, they can fool themselves into believing that it wasn't that they backed the wrong pony, but they WOULD have won if not for all the cheating. So not only do they still have the superior team despite the loss but they're also poor victims of an oppressive system. This is why the argument "they thought they were doing the right thing" falls flat. Everyone's in on the joke.

[Ivanstone]

'History is written by the victors' is more than just a glib aphorism, it plays out all the time.

You know one place where it didn't play out?

The United States of America.

The North decided to play nice with the South after the Civil War was over and the South started to re-write history. The "Lost Cause" is one of history's most pernicious lies and its effects continue to this day. You can draw a straight line from Reconstruction all the way to January 6th.

[cubby]

We want to be very careful here because there is an argument to be made that they’re political prisoners and political prosecutions and it’s not entirely baseless. I’m not saying I think that’s the case, but the actions we take regarding these rioters need to be more than above board. So yes, their state of mind absolutely matters.

Pushing that position, even "entertaining" that idea, is on the same thought level as "an argument to be made that the earth is flat".

And I’m sorry but was there an attempted murder charge somewhere in there that I missed? We’re certainly paying a lot of attention to how the representatives, senators, and police felt, and it certainly seems reasonable that they felt they were under attack. But from the viewpoint of the rioters, was that the intent? Because I’d have thought there’d be some kind of charges indicating that by now if it were the case.

It is interesting that we haven't had seen felony murder charges, as at least one federal officer was killed, along with a trump supporter. Here is a good summary of the federal felony murder statute as it applied to the Jan 6 Capital Riot (I looked the author up before posting, and she knows her stuff). It's as dull and boring to most people as all legal articles can be, so here's the summary:

[F]elony murder charges are definitely on the table for at least some of the people who stormed the Capitol. But it remains to be seen how broadly the rule can be applied to the rest.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why I said believed. They’re wrong of course, but you have to couch their actions in what their mindset was at the time. This is pretty established legal precedent for determining how serious a crime is or even if one has been committed at all.

I did not say they were attempting a coup. In fact they felt they were preventing a coup. Kind of the opposite.

The Rioters intent would have the same logic as a murderer justifying their actions by claiming to be helping to solve for climate change. Intent is am important element in crimes, however, not all intent carries the weight to change a charge. This is that case here.

[Endus]

The Rioters intent would have the same logic as a murderer justifying their actions by claiming to be helping to solve for climate change. Intent is am important element in crimes, however, not all intent carries the weight to change a charge. This is that case here.

A lot of people struggle with the idea that "an opinion that informed their decision to act that way" is what's generally described, under the law, as things like "motive" and "intent". It's pretty much never a defense. It's the equivalent of saying "hey, my wife cheated on me, and I can't let another man have her; I HAD to kill her". Yeah, that's an "opinion". A "point of view". A murderous one that describes the killer's motive and explains why and how he acted criminally, not an argument he did not act criminally.

[Breccia]

Once again, it is not a good day to be a member of Team Trump.

1) Steve Bannon faces legal issues as we all know. He's due to be dragged before Congress, either to testify or face contempt charges, his choice. Which is probably why he just took a loan on a $1.5 million estate linked to one of his nonprofits. Yes, Bannon has a nonprofit that at once point had a $1.5 million house attached to it, it was legal, go figure. No, not the nonprofit he was arrested for defrauding, a different one. This is one where he works with China. Er, kind of, he apparently left...look, it all makes no sense but it's in the article, Bannon at one point had an estate he took a loan against.

Had.

Bannon sougth the loan with a property he no longer owns. The estate was sold off Nov 2020 for a loss and...like I said, the whole thing makes no sense.

This is just a loan application of course. The loan could be denied for any number of reasons, from "you don't own the collateral" to "you're an insurrectionist and going to jail".

2) Tucker Carlson and FOX News discuss Viagra as a COVID treatment.

No, really.

To be fair, we at least know it's not horse dewormer or bleach. But he discussed the story based on a nurse doing a study on one patient. Hey, at this point America is looking hard for a cure, but if you look for a cure longer than four hours, you might need a vaccine.

3) Newsweek also reports how Trump spent his Jan 6th. He spent some of it golfing with Graham -- how appropriate, the guy who cheats on all his wives golfing with the guy whose wife I'm banging in the shower -- and then watching Biden's speech. Newsweek uses the term "fuming".

The reason he is so fixated on the so-called stolen election is that he still can't believe he lost to that guy. He thinks he's feeble and incompetent and believes Biden's first year has demonstrated that.

-- a source close to Trump

It doesn't matter if he believes it or not, he still lost

-- Breccia

4) Dustin Thompson and his lawyers are arguing in court that Wood, Giuliani, and Trump should all be subpoena'd in his case.

"Oh, is this either NY investigation into his fraud, or are they prosecutors in some other trial?"

Thompson is one of the murderous insurrectionists.

Considering the significant roles these witnesses play in the legal and political communities, and the evasiveness that some have historically shown in the face of court orders, Defendant submits that appointment of the U.S. Marshals Service is necessary in order to effectuate his right to compulsory process and ensure that the same is accomplished expeditiously

--the insurrectionist's lawyer filed this in court

I mean...it should work but won't. "So-and-so told me to do it" seems like a pretty good reason to bring someone to the stand...but Trump might literally rather die.

5) As I previously guessed, Raw Story agrees that Pence wants to testify, but fears backlash. And of course by "backlash" I mean "killed by Trump supporters". Incidentally, their state of mind won't matter. They could be convinced Pence is a coniferous tree, and they'd still face murder charges. Of course, if they're that delusional to be berift of objective facts or context, they might plead insanity.

[Beefhammer]

They had guns, bombs, molotov cocktails, thousands of rounds of ammo, and literally an arsenal in a fucking hotel that was close to the capitol building. To say they were poorly armed, is bullshit.

- - - Updated - - -



Nope, if I were a cop inside there, there would have been hundreds more dead. They are nothing but fucking terrorists that were looking to kill elected officials.

- - - Updated - - -



Don't forget the bullhorn lady that was directing terrorists on how to find lawmakers. She was giving detailed directions to lawmakers and how to get to them.

Yeah, hes just another conservaturd just full of shit.