Censorship

[Leftfield 2,617]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I doubt people would forget it happened, he was impeached over it. 

Memories are short, particularly for his supporters. Plenty didn't think it was a big deal to begin with, including, apparently, a nice portion of Congress.

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are the Democrats worried at all that Trump will be able to beat Harris in 2024?

After the rabid following he was able to gain, wouldn't you be? Let's not forget, if not for the pandemic, he would probably still be in the White House.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I think given that 74 million people watched the last four years and thought he deserved another four is reason enough to believe he has a shot at beating anyone. A whole lot of Americans have indicated that he can pretty much do anything he wants as long as he isn’t a Democrat.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

38 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Memories are short, particularly for his supporters. Plenty didn't think it was a big deal to begin with, including, apparently, a nice portion of Congress.

After the rabid following he was able to gain, wouldn't you be? Let's not forget, if not for the pandemic, he would probably still be in the White House.

It’s not that it wasn’t a big deal to them, it just that Trump didn’t incite the riot that day to many.  Hard to prove he did.  I know you don’t need proof when it comes to Trump, but it would be nice.  It just appears petty.

So, basically you’re saying you don’t trust Republicans to do what the Democrats want them to do, so you are limiting their choices.  Do I have this correct?

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Partly to make people go on the record and have to run on it next election cycle rather than try to sweep it under the rug and behave like it didn't happen.

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not that it wasn’t a big deal to them, it just that Trump didn’t incite the riot that day to many.  Hard to prove he did.  I know you don’t need proof when it comes to Trump, but it would be nice.  It just appears petty.

So, basically you’re saying you don’t trust Republicans to do what the Democrats want them to do, so you are limiting their choices.  Do I have this correct?

Trump incited the riot by insisting - and continuing to insist - he actually won the election, which was "stolen" from him. 

Most Republicans and all MAGAs still believe that.  Why should we "trust" them?

And given the Republican's voter suppression strategy there is still a good chance Trump could win the presidency, once again.  Thanks to our archaic system, they have made a living off assuming power as a minority party.

If we shouldn't impeach and disqualify an authoritarian for a blatant act of sedition, what would qualify??

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Honestly, when you spend months telling people that the other side is trying to perpetrate fraud with mail-in ballots and hijack our democracy, and then you lose and spend several more weeks telling people about a vast cabal of Democrats, socialists, Deep Staters, voting machine manufacturers and such that stole the election and took our democracy away from the people, and then you file scores of court cases and claim to have irrefutable proof of massive, widespread fraud to steal the election that you rightfully won, and then you call any Republican (including your own VP) that won't overturn the results losers and chickens and cowards, and you tell people they have to fight this hostile takeover and on and on and on it goes...

...and you know that a substantial amount of your base that's most upset about all this bull**** you have been feeding them are QAnon nutters, white nationalists, far-right militia weirdos and such...

...how in the hell do you get to express shock and pretend you didn't have anything to do with them when they actually do something about their democracy being hijacked from them?

[Leftfield 2,617]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

It’s not that it wasn’t a big deal to them, it just that Trump didn’t incite the riot that day to many.  Hard to prove he did.  I know you don’t need proof when it comes to Trump, but it would be nice.  It just appears petty.

So, basically you’re saying you don’t trust Republicans to do what the Democrats want them to do, so you are limiting their choices.  Do I have this correct?

No, I'm not saying Trump should be impeached as a means for Democrats to limit choices. I was answering your question about the Democrats being worried about running against him in 2024.

He should be impeached because he's a lying scumbag who betrayed his country for personal gain, and not just in regards to the election. It's awesome you think it's petty to impeach someone that has brought the office of the President to the lowest level in its existence.

I'm also disappointed you continue to focus only on the January 6 speech, instead of taking into consideration the years of disinformation he spread leading up to that moment. Strange how so many of his voters have become lawyers when it comes to parsing the legality of what he said that day, focusing on the minutia to distract from the big picture. Are you honestly telling me he bears no responsibility for the riot?

Edit: I jumped straight to responding, instead of reading the two comments after, so I apparently reiterated a bit. That said, it was worth repeating.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

18 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'm not saying Trump should be impeached as a means for Democrats to limit choices.

The issue is Trump is already out of office so the only thing a guilty verdict will do is prevent him from running again.

 

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

He should be impeached because he's a lying scumbag who betrayed his country for personal gain, and not just in regards to the election.

Well, congress impeached him for the above before and failed to convict so the lying scumbag excuse didn’t work and that is not a reason for impeachment in the first place.

 

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

It's awesome you think it's petty to impeach someone that has brought the office of the President to the lowest level in its existence.

Again, being an unpopular President is not a reason for impeachment. I know you don’t like him, but he is out of office and the only reason to impeach is so he can’t run again.  If congress lets it play out, without impeachment, people will know the thoughts of the Republicans come 2024.

19 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Are you honestly telling me he bears no responsibility for the riot?

He has as much responsibility for the riot as Bernie Sanders does for Scalise and the Republicans getting shot a few years ago.  Law should be consistent.

[homersapien 11,393]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The issue is Trump is already out of office so the only thing a guilty verdict will do is prevent him from running again.

 

It will also firmly establish the precedent that a president cannot simply do whatever he wants at the end of his/her term and escape accountability. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, congress impeached him for the above before and failed to convict so the lying scumbag excuse didn’t work and that is not a reason for impeachment in the first place.

It's not so much congress "failed" to convict as one party of congress placed their loyalty to Trump over accountability and the country's best interest.   History will judge them for that.

[homersapien 11,393]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, being an unpopular President is not a reason for impeachment. I know you don’t like him, but he is out of office and the only reason to impeach is so he can’t run again.  If congress lets it play out, without impeachment, people will know the thoughts of the Republicans come 2024.

He has as much responsibility for the riot as Bernie Sanders does for Scalise and the Republicans getting shot a few years ago.  Law should be consistent.

This has nothing to do with "popularity".  It is about accountability and the rule of law, both of which are integral to our democracy.

[homersapien 11,393]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He has as much responsibility for the riot as Bernie Sanders does for Scalise and the Republicans getting shot a few years ago.  Law should be consistent.

Bernie Sanders responsible for the Scalise shooting????!!  

That's totally insane! 

And you are still a member of the cult if you don't accept Trump's culpability in creating and fomenting belief in the big lie he actually won the 2020 election and the Democrats robbed him.  And he continues to do so.

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

The issue is Trump is already out of office so the only thing a guilty verdict will do is prevent him from running again.

That's actually wrong (there are perks of the office he would have to forfeit), but even if it wasn't, so what? Should Trump be allowed to run for office again? He is clearly unfit for it.

 

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, congress impeached him for the above before and failed to convict so the lying scumbag excuse didn’t work and that is not a reason for impeachment in the first place.

I see that you focused on the "lying scumbag" part and not the "betrayed his country for personal gain" part. And I'm sure the fact that Republicans were riding a populist wave to increase their power (also keeping in mind that a Supreme Court slot would almost certainly open soon), and that any of them voting to convict would be targeted for retaliation, had nothing to do with only one Senator (who just so happened to be their candidate for President 7 years earlier!) breaking ranks.

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, being an unpopular President is not a reason for impeachment. I know you don’t like him, but he is out of office and the only reason to impeach is so he can’t run again.  If congress lets it play out, without impeachment, people will know the thoughts of the Republicans come 2024.

I didn't say he was unpopular. I said he's brought the office of the President to its lowest level in its existence. Meaning not a one has come close to debasing it as he has. You also keep saying that preventing him from running again is the only reason to move forward with impeachment. Still not true. Aside from the perks I mentioned above, it allows our government a chance to show that his actions are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. It is a message to future generations that a President is not above the law, and that we as a society condemn what Trump has done. Unfortunately it appears that most Republicans in Congress, like you, don't think it matters. Morally responsible party and all that, am I right?

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

He has as much responsibility for the riot as Bernie Sanders does for Scalise and the Republicans getting shot a few years ago.  Law should be consistent.

Whataboutism. Thanks for your surrender.

You will clearly defend the man for anything.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It's not so much congress "failed" to convict as one party of congress placed their loyalty to Trump over accountability and the country's best interest.   History will judge them for that.

It was one party in the House that placed their loyalty to the impeachment over their duly elected duty.  I would expect us to disagree here.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Bernie Sanders responsible for the Scalise shooting????!!  

That's totally insane! 

And you are still a member of the cult if you don't accept Trump's culpability in creating and fomenting belief in the big lie he actually won the 2020 election and the Democrats robbed him.  And he continues to do so.

 

Can you read?  I don’t blame Sanders for the Scalise shooting, nor do I blame Trump for inciting a riot because of his words.

ETA: I do not believe Trump will make it out of the Republican primaries if he were to run.  I could be wrong on that.

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

It was one party in the House that placed their loyalty to the impeachment over their duly elected duty.  I would expect us to disagree here.

Their duty was to preserve the rule of law, as based on the Constitution. The President violated his oath, so they impeached. Surely they were also motivated by the fact they were on the opposite side of the aisle. That doesn't make them wrong.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Can you read?  I don’t blame Sanders for the Scalise shooting, nor do I blame Trump for inciting a riot because of his words.

Yes I can read.  You made the parallel with Sanders and Scalise.

But, see, the point is that Trump was responsible for inciting the riot.  Trump created and fomented the rioters by supplying their cause - the belief he actually won the election and it is being stolen. 

He supplied their raison d'etre.  And he continues to do it.

Why were these people at the capitol? What were they protesting? Who incited them to come?  Why were they trying to hijack and stop the congress?  Why were they threatening Pence?  Who initiated the idea that the Democrats stole the election in the first place?  Who is keeping the lie going?

I swear, it's people like you - who cannot accept reality when it stares you in the face - that will be the downfall of our country.  No country can survive when 40% of it's populace is in complete denial of reality.

We are experiencing our very own Zombie Apocalypse and you are one of the zombies.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

That's actually wrong (there are perks of the office he would have to forfeit), but even if it wasn't, so what? Should Trump be allowed to run for office again? He is clearly unfit for it.

Let the people decide if he is fit to run.  

 

13 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I see that you focused on the "lying scumbag" part and not the "betrayed his country for personal gain" part. And I'm sure the fact that Republicans were riding a populist wave to increase their power (also keeping in mind that a Supreme Court slot would almost certainly open soon), and that any of them voting to convict would be targeted for retaliation, had nothing to do with only one Senator (who just so happened to be their candidate for President 7 years earlier!) breaking ranks.

It Trump betrayed his country for personal gain it was not proven as indicated by the acquittal, maybe as a private citizen, lawyers can bring charges that will stick.  Did any of the Democrats that broke rank in the impeachment have any retaliation?  If you’re hanging your hat on Mitt Romney as a virtuous soul voting his conscious, you’ll hate him again when he bucks what Dems want.

 

21 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Unfortunately it appears that most Republicans in Congress, like you, don't think it matters. Morally responsible party and all that, am I right?

No, it does matter, the act perpetuated by some radicals was reprehensible.  That act was not specifically spawned by Trump that day.  If you can prove Trump organized the actions of the rioters, well then you have a case.  So far I haven’t seen anything to prove that and probably won’t by the trail date of the 8th of February.  Another rush to judgment by the Democrats I presume trying for the emotional conviction. 

 

24 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Their duty was to preserve the rule of law, as based on the Constitution. The President violated his oath, so they impeached. Surely they were also motivated by the fact they were on the opposite side of the aisle. That doesn't make them wrong.

If it is an almost unanimous vote on both sides of the isle, it seems the argument was not convincing enough.

 

26 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Whataboutism. Thanks for your surrender.

I don’t think it is whataboutism if it helps prove a point.

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

18 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why were these people at the capitol? What were they protesting? Who incited them to come?  Why were they trying to hijack and stop the congress?  Why were they threatening Pence?  Who initiated the idea that the Democrats stole the election in the first place?  Who is keeping the lie going?

I swear, it's people like you - who cannot accept reality when it stares you in the face - that will be the downfall of our country.  No country can survive when 40% of it's populace is in complete denial of reality.

We are experiencing our very own Zombie Apocalypse and you are one of the zombies.

They were at the capital to protest the election which is a right they have.  I have it on good authority that protests are allowed as I have seen them all summer.

Trump invited them to come, incite is the wrong word here. To me, it appeared they were trying to influence congress as the pro-choice people do all the time.

They were threatening Pence because they were feed incorrect information by Trump.  Pence is the man as he did not succumb to the pressure.  Not too much mention of this in the news, but the man has morales.  I think he could be a 2024 candidate that would have some traction.

I haven’t heard much about the election being stolen since that day, but I’m not as much into conspiracy theories as you seem to be.

I have accepted that Biden is our President, you are making stuff up in your head again.

[Leftfield 2,617]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Let the people decide if he is fit to run.  

First you say all impeachment will do is prevent him from running again. Then you say let the people decide if he's fit. 

If he'd shot someone before he left office, would you still say let the people decide if he's unfit?

 

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Did any of the Democrats that broke rank in the impeachment have any retaliation? 

No, and I'm amazed you pointed it out. Aren't Democrats supposed to be the ones that don't tolerate dissenting opinions?

 

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you’re hanging your hat on Mitt Romney as a virtuous soul voting his conscious, you’ll hate him again when he bucks what Dems want.

No I won't. I'm not a Democrat.

And it continues to amaze me that people will support Trump before Romney, as if Trump is even in the same globular cluster as Romney when it comes to ethics and decency.

 

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, it does matter, the act perpetuated by some radicals was reprehensible.  That act was not specifically spawned by Trump that day.  If you can prove Trump organized the actions of the rioters, well then you have a case.  So far I haven’t seen anything to prove that and probably won’t by the trail date of the 8th of February. Another rush to judgment by the Democrats I presume trying for the emotional conviction. 

As I said, you'll defend him for anything. You only point to the legality of the words he used at that one rally, and steadily refuse to acknowledge the lies he perpetuated throughout his Presidency that led to an easily-foreseen violent result (you're fooling yourself if you truly believe he wasn't intimately aware of the types of people that would show up at that rally). It proves your blindness to anything outside of what you want to believe.

 

32 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think it is whataboutism if it helps prove a point.

It didn't.

[Leftfield 2,617]

I'll just ask flat-out: do you believe that lying to subvert  one of the foundations of our Republic, an open and fair election, is an impeachable offense? Whether or not that led to a violent result?

[homersapien 11,393]

27 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They were at the capital to protest the election which is a right they have.  I have it on good authority that protests are allowed as I have seen them all summer.

Trump invited them to come, incite is the wrong word here. To me, it appeared they were trying to influence congress as the pro-choice people do all the time.

They were threatening Pence because they were feed incorrect information by Trump.  Pence is the man as he did not succumb to the pressure.  Not too much mention of this in the news, but the man has morales.  I think he could be a 2024 candidate that would have some traction.

I haven’t heard much about the election being stolen since that day, but I’m not as much into conspiracy theories as you seem to be.

I have accepted that Biden is our President, you are making stuff up in your head again.

BS

They weren't protesting the election because Trump lost, they were protesting the election because they actually believed it was stolen from Trump.  They believed that because Trump kept insisting it was so.

They attacked the capitol to interrupt the legal process that was "stealing" Trump's victory.  Trump told them so. (See Trump's comments on Pence.)

You are exactly what I was referring to when 40% of the population refusing to accept reality, which includes your absurd assertion that Trump had no role in generating the big lie or inciting the Jan. 6 riot. 

Insisting Trump is some sort of innocent bystander that had nothing to do with the MAGA's insurrection - or the fact a huge percentage of Republicans actually believe he won - is just as bad as believing he did win.  Trump started the big lie and he's maintaining it.

You are no less a zombie than they are.  Maybe worse, since you at least have sense enough to recognize the big lie for what it is,  yet you don't have the integrity to acknowledge Trump's responsibility for creating and fostering it and to hold him accountable.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If he'd shot someone before he left office, would you still say let the people decide if he's unfit?

Now that would fall under the high crimes clause, so yes he should be impeached.

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

No, and I'm amazed you pointed it out. Aren't Democrats supposed to be the ones that don't tolerate dissenting opinions?

So, you believe Tulsi Gabbard was not intimidated when she voted present in 2019 and Hillary Clinton attached her in Jan of 2020?  And yes, this whole thread confirms Democrats don’t tolerate dissenting opinions. 

 

16 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

And it continues to amaze me that people will support Trump before Romney, as if Trump is even in the same globular cluster as Romney when it comes to ethics and decency.

If a politician is so ethical and decent he/she would probably get smoked in a presidential election/debate just like Romney did in 2012.  The Republican Party is trying to find a backbone.  Right now we have a President who is a political windsock. 

22 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You only point to the legality of the words he used at that one rally, and steadily refuse to acknowledge the lies he perpetuated throughout his Presidency that led to an easily-foreseen violent result (you're fooling yourself if you truly believe he wasn't intimately aware of the types of people that would show up at that rally). It proves your blindness to anything outside of what you want to believe.

The legality of the words he used is the standard for proof of guilt or innocence.  Only the people with 20/20 hindsight think it was foreseen. Where were you people before the uprising?  Shame on you for letting this happen.

I can see why you believe he should be impeached, it just is not based on verifiable evidence.  Show me were he orchestrated this event and I’m right with you.

By the way, what’s the rush?  Why not find the evidence before the Senate trial? 

[I_M4_AU 7,874]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are exactly what I was referring to when 40% of the population refusing to accept reality, which includes your absurd assertion that Trump had no role in generating the big lie or inciting the Jan. 6 riot. 

This part is hilarious.  Trump may or may not have incited the uprising on the Capitol Building as the trial won’t start until Feb 8th. You insisting otherwise is only your opinion.  Accepting reality is hard for you as you still believe Trump is a Russian agent.

Trump had every right to question the election and fight it out in court.  He has no patience and appealed to his base.  Over the months he got even more impatient and stepped up the rhetoric.  On the 6th he totally misread his followers that day as they seemed to be prepared to do more than just protest.

Again, if it can be proven Trump somehow coordinated the uprising, impeach him, I’m with you.  The trail will give Trump his due process.  Until then it is just opinions.  The trial will settle it for me, just like the first trail.  I am willing to accept it, will you?

[homersapien 11,393]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

This part is hilarious.  Trump may or may not have incited the uprising on the Capitol Building as the trial won’t start until Feb 8th. You insisting otherwise is only your opinion.  Accepting reality is hard for you as you still believe Trump is a Russian agent.

Trump had every right to question the election and fight it out icquittn court.  He has no patience and appealed to his base.  Over the months he got even more impatient and stepped up the rhetoric.  On the 6th he totally misread his followers that day as they seemed to be prepared to do more than just protest.

Again, if it can be proven Trump somehow coordinated the uprising, impeach him, I’m with you.  The trail will give Trump his due process.  Until then it is just opinions.  The trial will settle it for me, just like the first trail.  I am willing to accept it, will you?

Trump will be acquitted at the impeachment trial for the same reason he was acquitted in the first impeachment trial.  The Republican Party is now the Trump party and they will never hold him accountable.

 

 

From his speech right which led to the riot:

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'

This is three minutes into his speech and repeats a false claim that Democrats say is the starting point for the incitement charge - not just because he said it on this day but for weeks before.

This quote appears in the articles of impeachment - the charge sheet - prepared by Democrats and which was backed by the lower chamber of Congress on Wednesday.

In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials. Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, DC. There, he reiterated false claims that "we won this election, and we won it by a landslide."

It now goes to the Republican-controlled Senate for a trial.

'We will stop the steal'

Here Trump is echoing the hashtag of the movement to fight Mr Biden's election victory, which was started a day after the result was declared. It soon gathered pace on social media and led to rallies across the US. The largest one yet was the one Trump was addressing in this moment.

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

This is Mr Trump saying in the clearest terms yet that he will never accept Joe Biden's win. And this time he is exhorting his supporters to join him.

He went on: "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore."

At one point, the president says the Biden presidency has to be challenged.

"You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen."

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

This is the longest quote from Mr Trump's speech that appears in the charge sheet. It could also be the one that his lawyers will find hardest to defend if the impeachment goes to trial in the Senate.

He also wilfully made statements that, in context, encouraged - and forseeably resulted in - lawless action at the Capitol, such as: "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore."

'Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard'

This is the part of Mr Trump's speech that his defenders have seized on to show that he never incited the crowd.

He said: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

The language is very different from other sections which borrow more from combat or war.

'We are going to the Capitol'

The president uses "we" but he didn't join them as his supporters took the short walk from the rally to Congress.

He said: "We're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437