Trump and the riots

[Jainarayan]

It's an unresolved question. We'll have to see.

Actually no. The Constitution refers to removal from office after conviction in the Senate trial. There is no office for him to be removed from.

I certainly think Trump should be banned from further public office, he is completely unfit.

Operative words "I think". There's no basis for banning him from office unless he's convicted of a felony. Wishful thinking.

 

[Dave Watchman]

I'm not sure if this would be considered on a objective basis since people hate Trump, but I never thought he started the riot at the capitol. Here's something about it Trump Did Not Cause, Commit Capitol Riots

On three occasions during his speech, President Trump encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol and cheer for Trump's election. President Trump, however, did not state or imply that anyone should breach the Capitol, vandalize it or accost the lawmakers. In fact, he specifically stated that their protest should be peaceful. The three statements are as follows:

"And, after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down, any one you want but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol and we're going to cheer on our brave Senators, Congressmen and women."

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

"We're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give, the Democrats are hopeless, they're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

I agree.

Whether the author likes Trump or not (which is irrelevant) is not really the issue. To me, it's more people already didn't like Trump so they pin anything on the guy just because of the behavior of his "followers."

I'm not ashamed to make the voluntary disclosure: I do like Trump.

I sort of agree, or not 100%, with what you say here.

It WAS a weird day.

I couldn't even THINK about Covid that day.

I was reviewing all of the phone videos of the silly woman who got herself shot in the hallway.

And a guy crying on the street from New Jersey who was next to her when she hit the floor. He still had her blood on his hand.

It was weird. The day started with Trump saying we would never give up and he would never concede, and ended with him sneaking out of DC to a Texas Air Force Base as he was being silenced.

In one day sentiment had turned against Trump with such violent force that he was despised by the media and the public, with only the exception of his inner circle and closest friends.

Trump doesn't know what's going on. I was, and am, afraid for the guy.

The thing that happened, and is happening now, I believe to be more complex then what it appears to be on the surface. This is something that goes beyond the constraints of "politics." Something is going on. But for me, a simple truck driver, to be able to explain it, would certainly be as futile as me trying to explain the weak and the strong force between protons and neutrons.

I do believe that the fix was in.

I believe that even if SCOTUS had seen overwhelming evidence of election fraud, Biden would still prevail. The fix was in. It was baked in the cake. It was decided way back before Covid.

Just like the fix was in here:

Consider the power behind this move.

Just hours before the poles closed.

It was a force, a strong force, that could not be resisted.

Enjoy

I did.

Good job.

Nice post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually no. The Constitution refers to removal from office after conviction in the Senate trial. There is no office for him to be removed from.



Operative words "I think". There's no basis for banning him from office unless he's convicted of a felony. Wishful thinking.

It also allows for the removal of the ability to run again. And it also allows the removal of perks such as his pension and more important Secret Service protection.

Besides that it is established case law that impeachment trials can and have occurred after the person charged left office.

 

[Magic Man]

Actually no. The Constitution refers to removal from office after conviction in the Senate trial. There is no office for him to be removed from.



Operative words "I think". There's no basis for banning him from office unless he's convicted of a felony. Wishful thinking.

Try again:

EXPLAINER: Can Trump be impeached after leaving office?

"
WHAT DO SCHOLARS AND HISTORY HAVE TO SAY ON THE TOPIC?

A recent Congressional Research Service report for federal lawmakers and their staffs concluded that while the Constitution’s text is “open to debate,” it appears most scholars agree that a president can be impeached after leaving office. One argument is that state constitutions that predate the U.S. Constitution allowed impeachment after officials left office. The Constitution’s drafters also did not specifically bar the practice.
"

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I agree.



I'm not ashamed to make the voluntary disclosure: I do like Trump.

I sort of agree, or not 100%, with what you say here.

It WAS a weird day.

I couldn't even THINK about Covid that day.

I was reviewing all of the phone videos of the silly woman who got herself shot in the hallway.

And a guy crying on the street from New Jersey who was next to her when she hit the floor. He still had her blood on his hand.

It was weird. The day started with Trump saying we would never give up and he would never concede, and ended with him sneaking out of DC to a Texas Air Force Base as he was being silenced.

In one day sentiment had turned against Trump with such violent force that he was despised by the media and the public, with only the exception of his inner circle and closest friends.

Trump doesn't know what's going on. I was, and am, afraid for the guy.

The thing that happened, and is happening now, I believe to be more complex then what it appears to be on the surface. This is something that goes beyond the constraints of "politics." Something is going on. But for me, a simple truck driver, to be able to explain it, would certainly be as futile as me trying to explain the weak and the strong force between protons and neutrons.

I do believe that the fix was in.

I believe that even if SCOTUS had seen overwhelming evidence of election fraud, Biden would still prevail. The fix was in. It was baked in the cake. It was decided way back before Covid.

Just like the fix was in here:

Consider the power behind this move.

Just hours before the poles closed.

It was a force, a strong force, that could not be resisted.



I did.

Good job.

Nice post.

Wow. Thank you. I don't see many people giving this some thought like this based on what's said off and online in the past half a year. I do feel bad for the guy too. To tell you honestly, I feel him having COVID wasn't "an accident."-I can't explain how/why- but its just a gut feeling. He's not the only president that's been likened to association if not actually so.

I was speaking to my mother (republican) could days ago and she told me about the score jump as well. I remember saying how the numbers jumped myself but I thought maybe it was just the website I was on or something. Some things I don't agree with Biden on but, what can one do? I stayed right in bed and won't be going to DC no where in the next century.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since we already know that's not the case, why bother speculating? All of his rhetoric since the election (and really since he got into politics) has been combative, with an emphasis on how awful democrats are and how corrupt they are and how they're trying to do all kinds of underhanded/evil things. During his rallies, he often supported violence from his attendees. He even said at one that he'd pay the legal fees for anyone who got violent with protesters at the rally.

If you have any question as to whether Trump's rhetoric has supported violence, then you either haven't paid attention, or you are being disingenuous.

I think he cried wolf too many times.

"You" is accusation. I don't mind you disagreeing, but that's about it.

I'm actually a speculator. I know it doesn't change anything, but it's good to be more insightful than my taking things as is.

 

[Magic Man]

I agree.



I'm not ashamed to make the voluntary disclosure: I do like Trump.

I sort of agree, or not 100%, with what you say here.

It WAS a weird day.

I couldn't even THINK about Covid that day.

I was reviewing all of the phone videos of the silly woman who got herself shot in the hallway.

And a guy crying on the street from New Jersey who was next to her when she hit the floor. He still had her blood on his hand.

It was weird. The day started with Trump saying we would never give up and he would never concede, and ended with him sneaking out of DC to a Texas Air Force Base as he was being silenced.

In one day sentiment had turned against Trump with such violent force that he was despised by the media and the public, with only the exception of his inner circle and closest friends.

Trump doesn't know what's going on. I was, and am, afraid for the guy.

The thing that happened, and is happening now, I believe to be more complex then what it appears to be on the surface. This is something that goes beyond the constraints of "politics." Something is going on. But for me, a simple truck driver, to be able to explain it, would certainly be as futile as me trying to explain the weak and the strong force between protons and neutrons.

I do believe that the fix was in.

I believe that even if SCOTUS had seen overwhelming evidence of election fraud, Biden would still prevail. The fix was in. It was baked in the cake. It was decided way back before Covid.

Just like the fix was in here:

Consider the power behind this move.

Just hours before the poles closed.

It was a force, a strong force, that could not be resisted.



I did.

Good job.

Nice post.

See, Unveiled Artist, here is an example of what we were talking about. A post that supports Trump is riddled with outlandish claims.

1) Trump was never "being silenced". He always had the opportunity to come out and make a statement. People were calling for him to do just that all day, and he did put out a statement hours after the riot started. He then put out another one the next day.

2) Most sentiment was already against Trump. All that day did was force even a lot of his supporters to confront the harsh reality of what happens when you do and say the things he was doing and saying. A lot of people who previously could hide behind unreasonable justifications couldn't hide anymore. That was the point where they just had to come out and condemn what was going on. It was that bad.

3) The fix is not in. There is no fix. The situation is immensely easy to explain just using the facts. Trump never had an approval rating over 50%. He never appealed to most of the country. He was combative from the time he got into politics. He spouted lies and spread misinformation in an intentional effort to gain adoration and appease his ego. He shamelessly courted crazy conspiracy theorists like QAnon and racists like Proud Boys and their ilk. His entire presidency and appeal was built on demonizing anyone in the harshest ways possible who disagreed with him.

He then downplayed a pandemic that ran rampant, killing over 400,000 people just during his presidency. He actively worked against measures that would help mitigate it and save lives. There is no reasonable way to look at his presidency and be surprised that the majority of voters voted against him when they had the chance. He only just barely won the previous election anyway, and lost the popular vote to boot.

4) I don't know what you intend to prove with your graph, but all you proved was that according to the data at hand, Clinton had a strong change of winning the election, and then as more data came in her chances went down until enough data was in that there was almost no chance of her winning. That's kind of what happens in such cases. I don't even understand how it's supposed to support the idea that a fix was in.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If one's only source is a right wing wacko source one should have doubts about their arguments. If their arguments were valid you should be able to find them from a more reliable source.

That does not mean that you cannot use Newsmax and other such services for your original ideas. Just don't try to justify your beliefs using them. They are not reliable.


I like to use sources such as Media Bias Fact Check to see how accurate sources are. And please note, they don't just claim sources are questionable. They can show specific articles where they were wrong or had a very biased interpretation when they make their decisions. It is not just "because we say so". Here is the link for their rating of Newsmax:

Newsmax Bias Rating - Media Bias Fact Check

Check out post #41. Not really about arguing about sources-not trusting sources is fine. I never used that site, so your guess is as good as mine. Since that doesn't change what he said regardless how the media spins it for and against trump, I'd like to stick to just what's said in his speeches.

It'll take awhile to look up all his speeches to confirm the quotes aren't made up.

 

[Magic Man]

I think he cried wolf too many times.

Well, yeah. The difference between him and the boy who cried wolf is with Trump there never was a wolf to cry about.

"You" is accusation. I don't mind you disagreeing, but that's about it.

Correct. "You are being disingenuous" is an accusation. If the shoe fits...

I'm actually a speculator. I know it doesn't change anything, but it's good to be more insightful than my taking things as is.

Speculating is fine, but that's not all you're doing. You're introducing a scenario we already know is not true, most likely intentionally to confuse things. You're not being insightful. Being insightful would not involve cherry-picking a couple lines out of an hour-long speech as if they are representative of the whole. Being insightful doesn't involve dishonestly trying to counter arguments against your own, fully accepting flawed argument that agree with your own, and then pretending to be "just asking questions and not taking sides". Being insightful involves looking at the whole situation without assuming an answer before you have the facts. No one wants you to "take things as is". What you should do is not blatantly take a side, use selective information and biased sources, and then pretend that you're not taking sides and not "being political".

 

[Jainarayan]

Try again:

EXPLAINER: Can Trump be impeached after leaving office?

"
WHAT DO SCHOLARS AND HISTORY HAVE TO SAY ON THE TOPIC?

A recent Congressional Research Service report for federal lawmakers and their staffs concluded that while the Constitution’s text is “open to debate,” it appears most scholars agree that a president can be impeached after leaving office. One argument is that state constitutions that predate the U.S. Constitution allowed impeachment after officials left office. The Constitution’s drafters also did not specifically bar the practice.
"

And that's just one that contradicts what I found. There are others that contradict that. So I have 100' of nylon rope we can start pissing up.

 

[Magic Man]

Check out post #41. Not really about arguing about sources-not trusting sources is fine. I never used that site, so your guess is as good as mine. Since that doesn't change what he said regardless how the media spins it for and against trump, I'd like to stick to just what's said in his speeches.

It'll take awhile to look up all his speeches to confirm the quotes aren't made up.

You did use that site. At least be honest. The link you posted is from Newsmax. Whether or not you just wanted specific quotes, you used that link from that source because it supported your original point. If you had just wanted the quotes, you could have gotten them elsewhere, like with the transcripts of his speech you later posted.

What you should really do is not just look to see if a few quotes are made up. What you should do is watch or listen to just that speech that day, and then watch the video of him watching the riot. That would be enough to show that you can't cherry-pick that one line or two lines and throw away the other 59 minutes that contradict it, if you're trying to look at it objectively.

 

[Magic Man]

And that's just one that contradicts what I found. There are others that contradict that. So I have 100' of nylon rope we can start pissing up.

Except that you were replying to this:

"It's an unresolved question. We'll have to see."

And your conclusion was to say that that comment was unequivocally wrong. The point is that it's not. Some historians and legal scholars agree that Trump can still be impeached. You can disagree with them, but the fact is it's an unresolved question.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Correct. "You are being disingenuous" is an accusation. If the shoe fits...

I think I'll end this here. I was having a good discussion.

 

[Jainarayan]

Except that you were replying to this:

"It's an unresolved question. We'll have to see."

And your conclusion was to say that that comment was unequivocally wrong. The point is that it's not. Some historians and legal scholars agree that Trump can still be impeached. You can disagree with them, but the fact is it's an unresolved question.

And I can do "nyah nyah" all day long.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that you were replying to this:

"It's an unresolved question. We'll have to see."

And your conclusion was to say that that comment was unequivocally wrong. The point is that it's not. Some historians and legal scholars agree that Trump can still be impeached. You can disagree with them, but the fact is it's an unresolved question.

The fact is that he has already been impeached. Twice.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The fact is that he has already been impeached. Twice.

Where could Trump go now that he's not in office?

It's not like he an hold a McDonald's job somewhere, I'm sure.

 

[Magic Man]

I think I'll end this here. I was having a good discussion.

I think it's odd that you think it was a good discussion. It's mostly just been you using one line Trump said and ignoring everything else he's said in order to make an argument in defense of him and then, despite clearly taking a side, claiming to not take one. You even said at one point that your comments don't necessarily reflect your actual views.

I'm sorry that calling that stuff disingenuous makes you stop commenting, but it's an accurate description.

 

[Magic Man]

And I can do "nyah nyah" all day long.

Um...I guess you could, although I have no idea what that has to do with anything. All I was pointing out is that the claim that it's unresolved question is true, contrary to your insistence. It's verifiable that the question "Could Trump be impeached after he leaves office" is undecided, as there are plenty of historians and legal scholars who would say he can and plenty who say he can't. Then the other part:

Operative words "I think". There's no basis for banning him from office unless he's convicted of a felony. Wishful thinking.

If Trump is convicted through the impeachment trial, there could then be a separate vote to bar him from holding future office:

"If the Senate were to convict, lawmakers would take a separate vote on whether to disqualify him from holding future office."

EXPLAINER: Barring Trump from holding office again

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where could Trump go now that he's not in office?

It's not like he an hold a McDonald's job somewhere, I'm sure.

Your question is a red herring. What does it matter where he goes. As long as he does not come back. Impeachment makes banning Trump from any political office possible. It is best for the nation if he was formally banned from running again.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Your question is a red herring. What does it matter where he goes. As long as he does not come back. Impeachment makes banning Trump from any political office possible. It is best for the nation if he was formally banned from running again.

No. I'm actually curious. Where does he go?

I was looking up where former presidents go and such but since he's been impeached twice, based on RF, he'd probably get mobbed before he gets out the White House's doors. But hate aside, I couldn't figure out where ex-presidents go or work and their reputation would probably prevent them from working to pay taxes.