Continuing outrages related to our 45th President

[nereo]

I suppose a reasonable starting point is there wasn't a protest that was associated with a violent disruption of Congressional certification in 2017 the way there was in 2021.

Already forgotten the violent protests and riots when Trump was elected in 2016?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So in January 2017, armed Clinton supporters converged en mass in DC and rioted and stormed the US Capitol during the election certification process, forcing emergency evacuations and calling in bomb threats to derail the process? Clinton supporters wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in multiple states throughout 2017 to try to overturn the election based on non-existent data? I'm a researcher by training. I'd love to see your sources.

Since you are a researcher (Lol as if that gives you any credibility. So am I and I have a team of them but I don't flout it ) I ask you how many rioters were arrested in DC in 2017 inauguration,  what was the violence and damage, and what other cities across the US saw violent protests? This is well documented so as a researcher shouldn't take too long (and thank god you are a researcher). 

I did not ask or make any comment about 2021 so only looking for 2017 info.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Please follow the forum rules:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

2. Attack an argument, not a person
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.

[talltexan]

Thanks for re-centering us, @nereo .

The argument is whether there was violence associated with the protests at the National Mall during the 2017 inauguration.

My position: there was none or almost none.

[Davnasty]

Thanks for re-centering us, @nereo .

The argument is whether there was violence associated with the protests at the National Mall during the 2017 inauguration.

My position: there was none or almost none.

There was violence during the 2017 protests but nothing comparable to Jan. 6 and where violence did occur the motives were very different than the attack on the capital which was motivated by Trumps outright lies. If Clinton was having a rally down the road from the inauguration and telling her supporters the election was stolen and that they had to fight for their country, maybe you could draw some comparisons...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-inauguration-protests/violence-flares-in-washington-during-trump-inauguration-idUSKBN1540J7

for example:

The Disrupt J20 group on Twitter said its anger was not directed only at Trump, and that it would also have demonstrated had Democrat Hillary Clinton won the election last November.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisruptJ20 (this group was responsible for a lot of the violence and arrests)


In any case, even the person ostensibly disagreeing with you didn't refute your initial claim.

I suppose a reasonable starting point is there wasn't a protest that was associated with a violent disruption of Congressional certification in 2017 the way there was in 2021.

[GuitarStv]

Thanks for re-centering us, @nereo .

The argument is whether there was violence associated with the protests at the National Mall during the 2017 inauguration.

My position: there was none or almost none.

There was some violence in 2017 . . . police kettled the area and about 200 protesters were arrested after kettling the crowd (many of the people arrested turned out in the end to be journalists who weren't causing any damage/problem and were released).  Six police officers received minor injuries not requiring hospitalization.

That's very different from the capitol hill riots that President Trump incited though.  In that incident about 800 people broke into the capitol building, injuring 138 police officers (15 of whom required hospitalization) and leading to 4 police suicides within seven months afterwards.  One protester was shot in the head after refusing to obey capitol police's verbal orders and attempting to break into a barricaded door.  Last I read, 674 arrests/charges for federal crimes have been made.

[boarder42]

I suppose a reasonable starting point is there wasn't a protest that was associated with a violent disruption of Congressional certification in 2017 the way there was in 2021.

Already forgotten the violent protests and riots when Trump was elected in 2016?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

So in January 2017, armed Clinton supporters converged en mass in DC and rioted and stormed the US Capitol during the election certification process, forcing emergency evacuations and calling in bomb threats to derail the process? Clinton supporters wasted millions of taxpayer dollars in multiple states throughout 2017 to try to overturn the election based on non-existent data? I'm a researcher by training. I'd love to see your sources.

Since you are a researcher (Lol as if that gives you any credibility. So am I and I have a team of them but I don't flout it ) I ask you how many rioters were arrested in DC in 2017 inauguration,  what was the violence and damage, and what other cities across the US saw violent protests? This is well documented so as a researcher shouldn't take too long (and thank god you are a researcher). 

I did not ask or make any comment about 2021 so only looking for 2017 info.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

the onus of proof is on the person asserting the claim. which is you.

Just saying random shit thats false with no sources is whats wrong with the world today.

Trump nuked russia. go prove me wrong. thats F'n stupid.  Whoever makes the claim in this case me should provide evidence of said claim without it its just noise.

[iris lily]

Why does anyone care at all what Trump says now?  Isn't Biden president with a democratic congress?

Trump is now down there with the Kardishians in my give a fuck meter.

The Donald is in real estate. He does a great job in taking up residence in people’s  heads without paying any rent. Slick he is.

[The 585]

My parents are hardcore Trumpers and I can't stand it. They get angry about EVERYTHING and blame it on Biden. Chaos in Afghanistan! Mexicans pouring into our country! Gas prices going up! OUR ASSHOLE PRESIDENT!

I blame it on the conservative radio and news channels... like Newsmax. I gave it a try and listened, and it's insane the amount of anger, hatred, and false "facts" they spew 24/7. They've successfully brainwashed a large portion of our population, while making them believe they're the only ones NOT brainwashed.

[nereo]

My parents are hardcore Trumpers and I can't stand it. They get angry about EVERYTHING and blame it on Biden. Chaos in Afghanistan! Mexicans pouring into our country! Gas prices going up! OUR ASSHOLE PRESIDENT!

I blame it on the conservative radio and news channels... like Newsmax. I gave it a try and listened, and it's insane the amount of anger, hatred, and false "facts" they spew 24/7. They've successfully brainwashed a large portion of our population, while making them believe they're the only ones NOT brainwashed.

Hence the phrase “Thanks Obama!”
(Now “Thanks Biden…?”)

It’s maddening to see people blame a leader for something that happened before they were even in office, but alas it’s common-place nowadays

[ncornilsen]

My parents are hardcore Trumpers and I can't stand it. They get angry about EVERYTHING and blame it on Biden. Chaos in Afghanistan! Mexicans pouring into our country! Gas prices going up! OUR ASSHOLE PRESIDENT!

I blame it on the conservative radio and news channels... like Newsmax. I gave it a try and listened, and it's insane the amount of anger, hatred, and false "facts" they spew 24/7. They've successfully brainwashed a large portion of our population, while making them believe they're the only ones NOT brainwashed.

Hence the phrase “Thanks Obama!”
(Now “Thanks Biden…?”)

It’s maddening to see people blame a leader for something that happened before they were even in office, but alas it’s common-place nowadays

Certainly is, and Trump was on the receiving end of that stuff too.

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

[Davnasty]

My parents are hardcore Trumpers and I can't stand it. They get angry about EVERYTHING and blame it on Biden. Chaos in Afghanistan! Mexicans pouring into our country! Gas prices going up! OUR ASSHOLE PRESIDENT!

I blame it on the conservative radio and news channels... like Newsmax. I gave it a try and listened, and it's insane the amount of anger, hatred, and false "facts" they spew 24/7. They've successfully brainwashed a large portion of our population, while making them believe they're the only ones NOT brainwashed.

Hence the phrase “Thanks Obama!”
(Now “Thanks Biden…?”)

It’s maddening to see people blame a leader for something that happened before they were even in office, but alas it’s common-place nowadays

Certainly is, and Trump was on the receiving end of that stuff too.

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

So draw it. (Preferably over in the Biden thread)

You've made multiple comments that this is mostly Biden's fault but I haven't seen you provide any arguments or evidence.

[talltexan]

All Presidents inherit situations, and can move them toward better or worse through their choices.

Trump inherited a great economy, but some foreign policy challenges, including the Afghanistan War. If he is given a second term beginning in 2025, he may well not have to worry about Afghanistan at all. We sure won't have time to do so.

[scottish]

But only 1 former president has his own social network called the "TRUTH"!

Oops, apparently it's been defaced with a pig and taken offline already.    (I'm not sure what "defacing with a pig" means, but the WAPO reported it.)    Good thing nobody spent a lot of money on this one.

[Kris]

But only 1 former president has his own social network called the "TRUTH"!

Oops, apparently it's been defaced with a pig and taken offline already.    (I'm not sure what "defacing with a pig" means, but the WAPO reported it.)    Good thing nobody spent a lot of money on this one.

My DH told me that people are already signing up for accounts with emails like “stinkymcpoopstain” and such. And even more ridiculous: people have already snagged the user names DonaldTrump and DonaldJTrump.

They weren’t even smart enough to reserve those for him. Shades of the incompetence of his administration. Just… so laughable…. *shakes head*

[scottish]

I wonder if there's a scam here.   

It looks like there's a SPAC called Digital World Acquisition Company that has agreed to buy part ownership of Trump Media & Technology Group for 273M USD along with an initial stock offering of around 600M USD.    Apparently this will "enable" TMTG to launch the TRUTH.   But it also looks like it could provide a lot of capital to Trump through the stock offering.

The DWAC's share price jumped 350% today presumably as a result of the news release.    Media & technology is a bit more complicated than golf courses, hotels and casinos.   What investor would want a piece of a Trump company involved in this business?   And TMTG was just created in February.   How did it come to be worth 870M USD?   And Trump walks away with a minimum of 273M?

[Travis]

I wonder if there's a scam here.   

Is that really ever a question with him? He's famous for cheating his real estate contractors and blatantly used the RNC and Secret Service to keep his properties afloat. He's solicited hundreds of millions to fight the election results, and has spent hardly any of it. There was even a disclaimer on his first fundraising website that said something like "if this is a small donation, it probably won't go to my legal defense." He started a PAC so he can ask for donations any time he wants and there's nothing that says that money can't go straight into his pocket.  Republican voters are literally signing up to pay his bills.

Also, this is a stock offering on a company that barely exists on paper and was created to support a social media site that is about to get sued for misappropriating the software its going to run on before it's even launched.  Axios is calling this "a shell company buying a shell company."

[nereo]

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

Maybe you meant to write Obama? While Trump deserves some blame for the state of Afghanistan certainly Obama shoulders a good deal more (and W the most of all)

[LaineyAZ]

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

Maybe you meant to write Obama? While Trump deserves some blame for the state of Afghanistan certainly Obama shoulders a good deal more (and W the most of all)

I saw a Frontline documentary about Afghanistan and one of the explanations for Obama's decision to continue to keep the U.S. there was the fear of having another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, especially on his watch. 
Unfortunately, Democrats are routinely criticized for not being as tough on terrorism as Republicans, so therefore their decisions can spring more from a defensive political posture. 
Another example:  deportations were increased drastically under Obama even as the prevailing opinion was that Democrats were soft on illegal immigration.

[boarder42]

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

Maybe you meant to write Obama? While Trump deserves some blame for the state of Afghanistan certainly Obama shoulders a good deal more (and W the most of all)

I saw a Frontline documentary about Afghanistan and one of the explanations for Obama's decision to continue to keep the U.S. there was the fear of having another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, especially on his watch. 
Unfortunately, Democrats are routinely criticized for not being as tough on terrorism as Republicans, so therefore their decisions can spring more from a defensive political posture. 
Another example:  deportations were increased drastically under Obama even as the prevailing opinion was that Democrats were soft on illegal immigration.

when you sit in an echo chamber where any news not approved by your one true leader is fake(though ironically the opposite is typically true) and you have maybe a HS education its hard to see all sides.

[ncornilsen]

However, you can draw a direct, thick, red line between Biden decisions, to the chaos in Afganistan and the utter disasterMexican border. Fuel prices, maybe not so much. You should perhaps look at how you've been brainwashed before you start tut-tutting republicans.

Maybe you meant to write Obama? While Trump deserves some blame for the state of Afghanistan certainly Obama shoulders a good deal more (and W the most of all)

I saw a Frontline documentary about Afghanistan and one of the explanations for Obama's decision to continue to keep the U.S. there was the fear of having another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, especially on his watch. 
Unfortunately, Democrats are routinely criticized for not being as tough on terrorism as Republicans, so therefore their decisions can spring more from a defensive political posture. 
Another example:  deportations were increased drastically under Obama even as the prevailing opinion was that Democrats were soft on illegal immigration.

when you sit in an echo chamber where any news not approved by your one true leader is fake(though ironically the opposite is typically true) and you have maybe a HS education its hard to see all sides.

Democrats seem to think that too... I mean, they used pictures of detention centers, taken during the Obama administration, to try and skewer trump. which speaks to the fact that the mainstream media hasn't done a whole lot to maintain their own credibility.  I think it's hilarious you don't think democrats live in their own echo chambers where they can't see all sides, or that thier news sources are the truth.  Ever tried being a republican on a college campus?

As for drawing a line to Biden - He ignored his advisors (as documented by their testimony to congress) on the manner and timing of the withdrawal. He could have listened to their input and put together a plan on a similar timeline that didn't give billions of dollars in hardware to the Taliban, nor marooned all of those people in Afghanistan after our forces left. I don't see how you can possibly not attribute all of that directly to the Biden/harris team.

As for the border: He rescinded the Stay-in-Mexico policy and stopped border wall construction, among many other things. The numbers at the border show the effect of these changes. On top of that, you have the complete neglect by Harris and Biden of the issue aside from the things they have done to harm the issue. Then they try covering it up by shifting people around so nobody can get an accurate picture of how bad it really is.

[GuitarStv]

Democrats seem to think that too... I mean, they used pictures of detention centers, taken during the Obama administration, to try and skewer trump.

Which Democrats did this?

which speaks to the fact that the mainstream media hasn't done a whole lot to maintain their own credibility.

Is the argument that this is something that Democrats do, or that mainstream media does it?  Or is the argument that mainstream media is entirely controlled by Democrats?

Ever tried being a republican on a college campus?

What terrible things are happening to Republicans on college campuses?

As for drawing a line to Biden - He ignored his advisors (as documented by their testimony to congress) on the manner and timing of the withdrawal. He could have listened to their input and put together a plan on a similar timeline that didn't give billions of dollars in hardware to the Taliban, nor marooned all of those people in Afghanistan after our forces left. I don't see how you can possibly not attribute all of that directly to the Biden/harris team.

I think that this is a fair argument.

As for the border: He rescinded the Stay-in-Mexico policy and stopped border wall construction, among many other things. The numbers at the border show the effect of these changes. On top of that, you have the complete neglect by Harris and Biden of the issue aside from the things they have done to harm the issue. Then they try covering it up by shifting people around so nobody can get an accurate picture of how bad it really is.

Biden did rescind the Stay-In-Mexico policy.  This policy forced asylum seekers arriving by land to stay and live in Mexico (often in unsafe conditions) for extended periods of time before getting a hearing in court.  Because they were often staying in makeshift camps with no real address, it was difficult to get court documents to them and inform them of the times for their court appearances.  Seems like a denial of justice to me.  Do you have a different read on the situation?

Biden also stopped border wall contraction.  Was the border wall keeping immigrants out of the country?  Every analysis I read about the wall touted it's ineffectiveness.

I agree that Biden and Harris have neglected the situation at the border and nor prioritized it enough.  That's a valid complaint.

[talltexan]

Biden has also failed to make Latin America a priority in other ways, not even meeting with any significant heads of state from the region, while Trump--and this thread is about him--has made an endorsement in the Brazilian Presidential election. (he endorsed Bolsonaro)

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

[RetiredAt63]

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

Ideally President Biden will never make a statement about which candidate he would prefer.  He will have to work with the new President, whoever it is.  Why poison the waters?

As the northern neighbour I hope any American President will work with whatever Prime Minister we elect, just as we try to work with whatever President you elect.

[nereo]

Biden has also failed to make Latin America a priority in other ways, not even meeting with any significant heads of state from the region, while Trump--and this thread is about him--has made an endorsement in the Brazilian Presidential election. (he endorsed Bolsonaro)

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

Biden Meg with Mexico’s López Obrador fairly early (March?) IIRC.

There’s a pretty strong international tradition of world leaders not publicly favoring one candidate over another from another democratic country. Trump bucked that convention and it’s one I’m glad to have back.

[RetiredAt63]

Biden has also failed to make Latin America a priority in other ways, not even meeting with any significant heads of state from the region, while Trump--and this thread is about him--has made an endorsement in the Brazilian Presidential election. (he endorsed Bolsonaro)

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

Biden Meg with Mexico’s López Obrador fairly early (March?) IIRC.

There’s a pretty strong international tradition of world leaders not publicly favoring one candidate over another from another democratic country. Trump bucked that convention and it’s one I’m glad to have back.

Those of us in the other democratic countries appreciate that. 

Think of the awkwardness if we are so foolish as to elect someone the US President didn't want us to elect.   (Yes, that was snark).

[By the River]

1) Which Democrats did this?  ("Democrats seem to think that too... I mean, they used pictures of detention centers, taken during the Obama administration, to try and skewer trump.")

2) Is the argument that this is something that Democrats do, or that mainstream media does it?  Or is the argument that mainstream media is entirely controlled by Democrats?

3) What terrible things are happening to Republicans on college campuses?

4) Biden also stopped border wall contraction.  Was the border wall keeping immigrants out of the country?  Every analysis I read about the wall touted it's ineffectiveness.

1) Go find the "Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker" in this forum.  Several members that I assume are Democrats were using the kids in cages pictures as one of the reasons to sever relationships
2) Its both that the mainstream media used Obama pictures and said that they were Trump's which were then picked up by Democrats including some of our forum members as shown in #1.
3) Here is a local example...https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tulane-students-dorm-room-door-set-fire-victim-says-hes-conservative-153003349.html   Is arson good enough? 
4) The incomplete wall was not effective by itself.  However, something has changed to account for the massive surge in numbers of illegal immigrants.  Is it that the wall construction was showing a mindset that unfettered immigration was not allowed? Something else? I don't know.

[GuitarStv]

1) Go find the "Is Trump a Relationship Deal Breaker" in this forum.  Several members that I assume are Democrats were using the kids in cages pictures as one of the reasons to sever relationships

I was interested in your claim, so searched for the thread and checked it out:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/is-trump-a-relationship-deal-breaker/

There are zero pictures of children in cages.  On page two there are three posts lightly discussing the difference between the treatment that immigrant families received under Obama and Trump.  Nobody denied that Obama was responsible for locking children up.  Nobody said that children in cages was a reason to sever relationships.

2) Its both that the mainstream media used Obama pictures and said that they were Trump's which were then picked up by Democrats including some of our forum members as shown in #1.

I was interested in this story as well, because I'd never read much into it.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2018/may/29/donald-trump/trump-correctly-tweets-democrats-mistakenly-tweete/

There were indeed some pictures of children locked up at the border under Obama that were attributed to Donald Trump.  They were published by Arizona Republic in a story about Trump (however the story correctly identified the date of the photos - you can find the article here:  https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/immigration/2014/06/18/arizona-immigrant-children-holding-area-tour/10780449/) and then shared on twitter by Jon Favreau, a former Obama speechwriter and Democrat.  A few minutes after making the tweet about the photo, Favreau realized the mistake, removed his initial tweet, and then followed up with a second tweet citing the correct date of the photo.

Which part of this is outraging you?

3) Here is a local example...https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/tulane-students-dorm-room-door-set-fire-victim-says-hes-conservative-153003349.html   Is arson good enough? 

Is a single case of arson (which, honestly . . . looks like someone put a lighter up against his dorm room door) where nobody was hurt and the three people responsible were caught and arrested almost immediately indicative of some sort of widespread anti-conservative conspiracy?  No, I don't think it is.

That said, for a variety of reasons college campuses tend to slant liberal.  Any time you have a large majority of people sharing one point of view there is the potential for attacks (both subtle and overt) on people of a minority view.  I am heartened to see a correct and immediate response to this kind of violence indicated in the article you posted.

4) The incomplete wall was not effective by itself.  However, something has changed to account for the massive surge in numbers of illegal immigrants.  Is it that the wall construction was showing a mindset that unfettered immigration was not allowed? Something else? I don't know.

There was no analysis done that I've read indicating a fully completed wall would be effective at preventing illegal immigration.  Do you have different information?

As far as the surge in illegal immigrants . . . illegal immigration comes in waves.  There were previous surges and there will be future ones again.  It's true that we appear to be returning to numbers closer to George Bush era regarding immigrant detention:


How much of this can be attributed to Biden vs Trump, or maybe simply related to a reduction of numbers during 2020 due to response to covid . . . that's anyone's guess.  It seems certain that the border wall has nothing to do with it though.

[Just Joe]

Look at the clickbait headlines! Arson, fire, etc. That wasn't arson so much as it was vandalism. Unwise, the vandals were right to be arrested but whew, the hand-wringing of these media outlets. It might not be about politics at all, the victim might just be an insufferable person.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tulane+arson+dorm&ia=web

[talltexan]

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

Ideally President Biden will never make a statement about which candidate he would prefer.  He will have to work with the new President, whoever it is.  Why poison the waters?

As the northern neighbour I hope any American President will work with whatever Prime Minister we elect, just as we try to work with whatever President you elect.

I cannot help but feel like there's an asymmetry here. The US President can have much greater consequences for other countries than the reverse. AMLO represented a significant change in direction for Mexico, and many Americans have barely heard of him.

I feel like making endorsements in races for other countries is a great example for Trump to act like a "President"--doing something that seems statesmanlike to his supporters--while actually demonstrating yet one more reason he shouldn't actually be the President.

[RetiredAt63]

When will we learn which candidate Biden would prefer to have become President of Brazil? When we do, I will make sure to discuss it on the "Biden Policy Debate" thread.

Ideally President Biden will never make a statement about which candidate he would prefer.  He will have to work with the new President, whoever it is.  Why poison the waters?

As the northern neighbour I hope any American President will work with whatever Prime Minister we elect, just as we try to work with whatever President you elect.

I cannot help but feel like there's an asymmetry here. The US President can have much greater consequences for other countries than the reverse. AMLO represented a significant change in direction for Mexico, and many Americans have barely heard of him.

I feel like making endorsements in races for other countries is a great example for Trump to act like a "President"--doing something that seems statesmanlike to his supporters--while actually demonstrating yet one more reason he shouldn't actually be the President.

Definitely.  You would not believe the number of political cartoons here over the years where the American elephant massively outweighs the Canadian beaver.  We are fully aware of the asymmetry.  There are NAFTA clauses re arbitrating trade issues that we fought really hard for, because otherwise any trade agreement with the US is going to be totally lopsided, and not in our favour.  Trump putting tariffs on us because we were a "security risk" still rankles.  The risk was all in how his supporters saw him.

[OzzieandHarriet]

Is anyone reading the series in the WaPo about January 6?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/jan-6-insurrection-capitol/?itid=hp-top-table-main#key-findings

Overview:

President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems. The doubts he cultivated ultimately led to a rampage inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob came within seconds of encountering Vice President Mike Pence, trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath, and 140 police officers were assaulted.
The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event. It was a battle in a broader war over the truth and over the future of American democracy.
Since then, the forces behind the attack remain potent and growing. Trump emerged emboldened, fortifying his hold on the Republican Party, sustaining his election-fraud lie and driving demands for more restrictive voting laws and investigations of the 2020 results, even though they have been repeatedly affirmed by ballot reviews and the courts. A deep distrust in the voting process has spread across the country, shaking the foundation on which the American experiment was built — the shared belief that the nation’s leaders are freely and fairly elected.

[OtherJen]

Is anyone reading the series in the WaPo about January 6?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/jan-6-insurrection-capitol/?itid=hp-top-table-main#key-findings

Overview:

President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems. The doubts he cultivated ultimately led to a rampage inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob came within seconds of encountering Vice President Mike Pence, trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath, and 140 police officers were assaulted.
The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event. It was a battle in a broader war over the truth and over the future of American democracy.
Since then, the forces behind the attack remain potent and growing. Trump emerged emboldened, fortifying his hold on the Republican Party, sustaining his election-fraud lie and driving demands for more restrictive voting laws and investigations of the 2020 results, even though they have been repeatedly affirmed by ballot reviews and the courts. A deep distrust in the voting process has spread across the country, shaking the foundation on which the American experiment was built — the shared belief that the nation’s leaders are freely and fairly elected.

Yes. The amount of damage that Trump and his cult have done to our election system over the last year cannot be understated. I'm working the polls tomorrow as a precinct chair for our city's non-partisan municipal elections. We've already been warned that police will be readily available. Poll workers in the neighboring suburb, which is also having non-partisan municipal elections, will have police escorts as they transport the sealed ballot bags etc. to city hall after the polls close.

I also worked the municipal primary in August. We had fewer than 70 in-person voters, of whom 2 expressed serious concerns about the voting machines, suggested that we were trying to cheat by offering them the recommended pens (and refused to use those pens), and insinuated that we were going to cancel their ballots by rigging the equipment.

For comparison, we had 490 in-person voters at the same precinct last November, none of them questioned the equipment or accused us of cheating, and only one of them was at all argumentative (didn't want to take off his Trump hat, despite being in violation of election law prohibiting campaign gear at the polls). Next year is going to be a shit show.

[talltexan]

Is anyone reading the series in the WaPo about January 6?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/jan-6-insurrection-capitol/?itid=hp-top-table-main#key-findings

Overview:

President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems. The doubts he cultivated ultimately led to a rampage inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob came within seconds of encountering Vice President Mike Pence, trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath, and 140 police officers were assaulted.
The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event. It was a battle in a broader war over the truth and over the future of American democracy.
Since then, the forces behind the attack remain potent and growing. Trump emerged emboldened, fortifying his hold on the Republican Party, sustaining his election-fraud lie and driving demands for more restrictive voting laws and investigations of the 2020 results, even though they have been repeatedly affirmed by ballot reviews and the courts. A deep distrust in the voting process has spread across the country, shaking the foundation on which the American experiment was built — the shared belief that the nation’s leaders are freely and fairly elected.

The woman who was shouting commands to the crowd through a megaphone, then--when the Washington Post interviewed her--claimed that ANTIFA were provoking everyone was sickening.

[nereo]

Is anyone reading the series in the WaPo about January 6?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/jan-6-insurrection-capitol/?itid=hp-top-table-main#key-findings

Overview:

President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems. The doubts he cultivated ultimately led to a rampage inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob came within seconds of encountering Vice President Mike Pence, trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath, and 140 police officers were assaulted.
The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event. It was a battle in a broader war over the truth and over the future of American democracy.
Since then, the forces behind the attack remain potent and growing. Trump emerged emboldened, fortifying his hold on the Republican Party, sustaining his election-fraud lie and driving demands for more restrictive voting laws and investigations of the 2020 results, even though they have been repeatedly affirmed by ballot reviews and the courts. A deep distrust in the voting process has spread across the country, shaking the foundation on which the American experiment was built — the shared belief that the nation’s leaders are freely and fairly elected.

The woman who was shouting commands to the crowd through a megaphone, then--when the Washington Post interviewed her--claimed that ANTIFA were provoking everyone was sickening.

Over 100 individuals have pled guilty for crimes committed during the Jan 6th insurrection. Over 600 more have been charged and their cases are working their way through the courts.  As near as I can tell every one of those who pled guilty are right wing Trump supporters.

Once upon a time the Republican Party claimed that it was the party of personal responsibility.

[boarder42]

Just leave this here

[Travis]

Just leave this here

Give me money to win the election.
Give me money to sue the election.
Give me money because I know you're suckers and won't read the fine print.
Give me money to avert another bankruptcy.

[talltexan]

I was the sort of business-friendly conservative who used to find candidates like Youngkin very appealing. I cannot help but think that Trump realized he would win anyway--there's no denying that the political winds have turned into headwinds for Democrats--and tried to get his endorsement out there ahead of the victory.

[brandon1827]

Seems maybe the lesson there is in order for more moderate Republicans to win, Trump needs to stay away. Not sure many Republicans nationwide will buy that strategy...I'm hoping not many as I feel like at this stage of the game he may be more of a hindrance than a help to many candidates

[Travis]

Seems maybe the lesson there is in order for more moderate Republicans to win, Trump needs to stay away. Not sure many Republicans nationwide will buy that strategy...I'm hoping not many as I feel like at this stage of the game he may be more of a hindrance than a help to many candidates

That sentiment lasted about a week after 6 Jan, until McCarthy and McConnell realized they can't survive without Trump's base so they reverted back to party loyalty over everything else.  As a rule, the party doesn't care about what happened at the Capitol. Only 35 Republicans voted to investigate the attack and McConnell even cried on the Senate floor about it being an attack and blamed Trump, but he doesn't want to investigate it either. McCarthy continues to charge down the hill carrying the Trump standard while McConnell is still trying to play both sides to keep his job. Either way, Trump supporting, Big Lie believing Republican voters can change elections and moderates can't ignore them. He'll start being a liability if he's no longer able to bring in money or donors switch sides, and right now he's still a player in nation-wide fundraising.

[ncornilsen]

Seems maybe the lesson there is in order for more moderate Republicans to win, Trump needs to stay away. Not sure many Republicans nationwide will buy that strategy...I'm hoping not many as I feel like at this stage of the game he may be more of a hindrance than a help to many candidates

That sentiment lasted about a week after 6 Jan, until McCarthy and McConnell realized they can't survive without Trump's base so they reverted back to party loyalty over everything else.  As a rule, the party doesn't care about what happened at the Capitol. Only 35 Republicans voted to investigate the attack and McConnell even cried on the Senate floor about it being an attack and blamed Trump, but he doesn't want to investigate it either. McCarthy continues to charge down the hill carrying the Trump standard while McConnell is still trying to play both sides to keep his job. Either way, Trump supporting, Big Lie believing Republican voters can change elections and moderates can't ignore them. He'll start being a liability if he's no longer able to bring in money or donors switch sides, and right now he's still a player in nation-wide fundraising.

For the sake of this country, I hope that's sooner than later. The only thing that stinks worse than Biden/Harris right now is Trump, and we're often forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

[gentmach]

Is anyone reading the series in the WaPo about January 6?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/jan-6-insurrection-capitol/?itid=hp-top-table-main#key-findings

Overview:

President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy began in the spring of 2020, when he issued a flurry of preemptive attacks on the integrity of the country’s voting systems. The doubts he cultivated ultimately led to a rampage inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob came within seconds of encountering Vice President Mike Pence, trapped lawmakers and vandalized the home of Congress in the worst desecration of the complex since British forces burned it in 1814. Five people died in the Jan. 6 attack or in the immediate aftermath, and 140 police officers were assaulted.
The consequences of that day are still coming into focus, but what is already clear is that the insurrection was not a spontaneous act nor an isolated event. It was a battle in a broader war over the truth and over the future of American democracy.
Since then, the forces behind the attack remain potent and growing. Trump emerged emboldened, fortifying his hold on the Republican Party, sustaining his election-fraud lie and driving demands for more restrictive voting laws and investigations of the 2020 results, even though they have been repeatedly affirmed by ballot reviews and the courts. A deep distrust in the voting process has spread across the country, shaking the foundation on which the American experiment was built — the shared belief that the nation’s leaders are freely and fairly elected.

They seem to have glossed over the police opening the gates.
https://youtu.be/suo7bZiDZU8

You know, the gates to one of the most secure buildings in the western hemisphere. In post 9/11, post Boston Bombing, post Las Vegas shooting America. Where we still have to take our shoes off to get on to a plane.

Where Operation Noble Eagle guarantees a "no fly zone" over Washington DC 24 hours a day (https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458956/2001-operation-noble-eagle/) using squadrons of F-15's?

We have put billions into the defense of that building and the military will rain hellfire on American citizens to protect that building.

Yet they opened the gates because the police were overwhelmed letting a bunch of boomer hillfolk took over one of the most secure buildings in the western hemisphere. That makes sense to you?

[OzzieandHarriet]

Did you even read the article? The police opened the gates (or rather, gave up trying to fend off the mob) because they were vastly outnumbered and channels to provide backup had been disengaged or delayed. The “billions of dollars” spent defending that building are spread out over time, and if the US president orders (as seems possible) that resources not be used in an emergency the small forces on the ground can’t do much.

[gentmach]

Did you even read the article? The police opened the gates (or rather, gave up trying to fend off the mob) because they were vastly outnumbered and channels to provide backup had been disengaged or delayed. The “billions of dollars” spent defending that building are spread out over time, and if the US president orders (as seems possible) that resources not be used in an emergency the small forces on the ground can’t do much.

Yes. I did read the article. It makes sense to have F-15's and SAM sites in DC but no one in the Pentagon thought over the course of 19 years "hey what if people walked up to it?" We do have historical precedent of Canadians burning the damn place down after walking to it.

And this was the most contentious day in modern American history yet no one thought to apply any lessons learned in those 19 years?

And if I remember correctly with the case of Congress, the Sergeant at Arms can request National Guard support.

[Just Joe]

Sounds like they need rule changes to moderate a future president and any congressional members that may be encouraging a coup. As in if the Chiefs of Staff, for example, see a need the Guard or the military is deployed to secure the Capitol regardless of what the president might want them to do.

Its like pulling a fire alarm - the fire department is coming to investigate, and the alarm doesn't reset until the fire chief uses his key.

Once the Capitol and its occupants are protected, any crowd controlled, then the WH excuses and explanations can begin.

This needs to be a "no messing around" situation. If people insist on breaking down doors or crawling through windows then they need to know they are facing armed guards with permission to use deadly force.

[Travis]

As in if the Chiefs of Staff, for example, see a need the Guard or the military is deployed to secure the Capitol regardless of what the president might want them to do.

This needs to be a "no messing around" situation. If people insist on breaking down doors or crawling through windows then they need to know they are facing armed guards with permission to use deadly force.

That's coup-making material right there. A great many national leaders have found themselves out of a job or without a head because the chief of the army or praetorian guard decided to "protect" the capitol on his own volition.

As for facing deadly force from that military - who grants them permission? Giving the US military the authority to decide on their own when to shoot US citizens is a really bad idea.  There are places on my base where deadly force is authorized to protect that real estate, but it cites the law, executive order, or statute that grants that authority. We always have to answer to somebody.

[nereo]

Anyone else notice how Trump promised “over a trillion” dollar infrastructure plan every year of his four year presidency, yet that vague plan never even made it to the floor of either house despite GOP control.  A trillion dollar infrastructure bill was a core promise of his 2016 campaign, and then there was an agreement with Dem leaders in 2019 for a $2T infrastructure bill, but it never progressed from there.

Meanwhile the Biden administration passes an infrastructure bill in under 10 months and the two retorts from all sides is how it took so long and how it is so large.

If I had one hope for the Trump presidency when he was elected it was that such an infrastructure bill might actually go through, given his constant talk about how badly in need or modernization our infrastructure is.

[Travis]

Anyone else notice how Trump promised “over a trillion” dollar infrastructure plan every year of his four year presidency, yet that vague plan never even made it to the floor of either house despite GOP control.  A trillion dollar infrastructure bill was a core promise of his 2016 campaign, and then there was an agreement with Dem leaders in 2019 for a $2T infrastructure bill, but it never progressed from there.

Meanwhile the Biden administration passes an infrastructure bill in under 10 months and the two retorts from all sides is how it took so long and how it is so large.

If I had one hope for the Trump presidency when he was elected it was that such an infrastructure bill might actually go through, given his constant talk about how badly in need or modernization our infrastructure is.

Republicans are losing their minds because he put one in the Win column no matter how desperately we needed this. Far-left Democrats wanted to use this opportunity to fill it with everything on their Christmas lists even if they knew most of them were poison pills.  Arguing the issue has always been more important than actually doing something about it.  If we actually funded national infrastructure to the level required, gasoline would probably be a dollar more expensive across the board and construction workers and engineers would always be in high demand.  We needed a trillion dollar bill passed a decade ago.

[talltexan]

If I had one hope for the Trump presidency when he was elected it was that such an infrastructure bill might actually go through, given his constant talk about how badly in need or modernization our infrastructure is.

I happened to hear Mick Mulvaney speak in person at an event in December 2017, and he talked about how "Republicans doing infrastructure is different than Democrats doing infrastructure." It depended much more on creating incentives for private investment than on direct spending.

If Trump could have brokered a deal like this infrastructure bill, Republican voters would have never let us forget it, I have no doubt.

[sonofsven]

If I had one hope for the Trump presidency when he was elected it was that such an infrastructure bill might actually go through, given his constant talk about how badly in need or modernization our infrastructure is.

I happened to hear Mick Mulvaney speak in person at an event in December 2017, and he talked about how "Republicans doing infrastructure is different than Democrats doing infrastructure." It depended much more on creating incentives for private investment than on direct spending.

If Trump could have brokered a deal like this infrastructure bill, Republican voters would have never let us forget it, I have no doubt.

Let alone the recent stock market gains from the "TRUMP ECONOMY, HIGHEST EVAH".

[brandon1827]

The kicker is that Trump had a 2T infrastructure package on the table, and because he's an infant, got pissed off about something else and walked away from it. Now he's bashing McConnell for supporting the current bill and blaming him for the failed bill during Trump's presidency...when he was the one that tanked it. Typical Trump

[Just Joe]

As in if the Chiefs of Staff, for example, see a need the Guard or the military is deployed to secure the Capitol regardless of what the president might want them to do.

This needs to be a "no messing around" situation. If people insist on breaking down doors or crawling through windows then they need to know they are facing armed guards with permission to use deadly force.

That's coup-making material right there. A great many national leaders have found themselves out of a job or without a head because the chief of the army or praetorian guard decided to "protect" the capitol on his own volition.

As for facing deadly force from that military - who grants them permission? Giving the US military the authority to decide on their own when to shoot US citizens is a really bad idea.  There are places on my base where deadly force is authorized to protect that real estate, but it cites the law, executive order, or statute that grants that authority. We always have to answer to somebody.

What I didn't do a very good job of describing is some sort of fire alarm protocol that a president like Trump and congressional members like the current batch of GOP can't derail or delay. Trump and his minions were trying to use a violent poorly informed crowd to derail an election process. Words matter. Trump and his congressional minions shouldn't be able to put the lives of everyone else in danger like that.

And like we saw with the woman who crawled through the window despite the warning that she would be shot - - the police need protocols that limit how far the crowd is allowed to go. Hopefully one life is enough to show the rest of the circus how serious the police and secret service are.

To me Jan 6 would have been uncontrollable had any of those participants brought guns. Just wasn't enough capitol personnel to defend the building and the lives within it. I didn't like how Capitol police did not seem to have the resources to do their jobs and protect themselves from the crowd. It seemed like they were expendable. I don't like that. I recognize their priority was likely just to delay the crowd so the VIPs inside could be relocated.