[talaniman]

@ Tom

No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. He uses both to his own ends to hold onto power and influence. Interesting how some on the right conflates BLM and antifa, but wants to separate white supremists from conservatism. I don't think that's consistent, and the dufus capitalizes on that conflation.

[jlisenbe]

That completely ignores the fact that for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes . They have been given rhetorical legitimacy by MANY in the ranks of the Democrats .They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party .

That's a really good point. Violent protests over a really questionable narrative of widespread police brutality have been going on since Ferguson. Dem pols don't raise a whisper against it, and neither do the liberals on this board. The general attitude seems to be that if it can't be used against Trump, then it's not worth talking about.

[tomder55]

No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. he uses both to his own ends

if you watch the video Ben posted ,that is exactly what is concluded in the last couple of minutes of the video.

[jlisenbe]

One of the final comments was a man opining that this was the beginning of the emergence of a new movement with violence at its core. You just want to ask this guy where he's been the past few years.

[talaniman]

if you watch the video Ben posted ,that is exactly what is concluded in the last couple of minutes of the video.

I drew my conclusions years ago when the dufus was a candidate.

[Athos]

Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively

YES, it is Trump's biggest lie. No conjecture about it. Every election has been certified by Republican officials including secretaries of state. Even AG Barr, Trump's biggest flunkie, had to admit the election was fair and not fraud involved. Even for Barr, that was a bridge too far.

Trump said in his speech that the march toward the Capitol should be done peacefully. That fact has been ignored in 2 days of impeachment by the House prosecutors . I wonder why ?

Because it was clearly not spoken by Trump to have any meaningful portent. It was a throwaway line for the cameras. All you have to do is watch him saying it. He used "peace" once - other words of violence were used constantly in his speech.

Trump did not command them to attack the Capitol

Nobody said he did. A straw horse from you.The charge is that he INCITED them - not commanded them.

Trump's use of the word 'fight ' is common political rhetoric

Not the way Trump used it - he MEANT it literally. Watch the video.

are they also leaders of a cult ?

Trump is not the leader of a cult. He's not smart enough. His followers exhibit cult-like behavior. A difference.

for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes

Man, you sure can get things wrong. The violence was due to the Police murdering black men and women because they were black. If you mean that they are using violence as a political took to keep blacks from being murdered - sure, of course they are.

They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party

Hogwash! The Republican Party has become one huge camp of armed insurrectionists.

I would also point out that June 14 ,2017 ,a Bernie Sanders supporter attacked a group of Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a baseball game . He shot Rep Steve Scalise and others . Overall 5 people were injured before the shooter was shot and killed .Rep Gabby Gifford was shot in the head and critically wounded by a deranged and mentally disturbed political independent in 2011.

This is called whataboutism - when you have nothing to defend re a current discussion, you revert to something not being discussed. I'm surprised you left out Benghazi. Or the French and Indian war.

In the 1960s and 1970s violence was used repeatedly by the left in opposition to the Vietnam war . Violence was used as a tool in the civil rights struggles in this country by both sides of the issue.

Both uses justified by an unjust war and by an unjust society. Bull Connor was an example of the other side of the issue.

The raw truth is that violence has historically been a political tool used in this country for both good and bad causes . John Brown was a violent leaders in the pre civil war days as a strident abolitionist . All he did was take part in 'Bloody Kansas ' when the issue was if Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state. He went on to attack a Federal armory in an attempt to foment a slave revolt.

There has been violence in human affairs since Cain slew Abel. It's not news.

[Curlyben]

Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively and even if they do ;a lie is intentional . Both sides of the issue believe they are right .

You know as well as I do that you can't prove the absence of a thing.
Fraud hasn't been proven at all, certainly not on the scale as raved about since November.
If it was THAT large then there would be something to see.

BLM/Antifa, etc, while violent, didn't forcibly occupy the seat of government...
The narrative writes itself.

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.

[talaniman]

Very well said Ben, the point of the whole exercise is to make sure the dufus can't keep his promise..."This is just the beginning..." he said after the riot on the capitol, and the ball is in repubs lap. They shamefully fumbled the last opportunity to rid us of this lying, cheating, stealing bully, and he got even worse, but the PEOPLE saved us.

I disagree though that the election fraud narrative is anything but a big fat lie and always has been for the decades repubs have hollered it for the sake of limiting select populations exercise in the voting process. Repub state legislatures are already back at the game of restricting access after the latest election.

[jlisenbe]

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.

I think those are fair statements except for the last one. Rather surprisingly, most of the the members of the Senate have been in office for no more than two terms which would scarcely qualify them as "life termers". I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_senators

[talaniman]

Republican's have become the party of the dufus and the establishment is scared of his popularity with his base. Old school repubs have quite the party and run to the dems during the last election cycle, and many have become independents.

120 anti-Trump Republicans are in talks to form a center-right third party that would run on 'principled conservatism,' report says (msn.com)

Republicans at a crossroads while battling for the 'soul' of the GOP (businessinsider.com)

[Curlyben]

I think those are fair statements except for the last one. Rather surprisingly, most of the the members of the Senate have been in office for no more than two terms which would scarcely qualify them as "life termers". I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.

This problem is endemic, and not merely limited to the US.
Why have a President that can only serve 2 terms, yet the make up for the Senate doesn't change as often.
There are some serious Long termers, 30+ years right there.
13 from last century, only 9% are fresh intake.
The whole system needs an overhaul, and that has nothing to do with party lines.
The UK went through this type of pain with the overhaul of our upper chamber.

I disagree though that the election fraud narrative is anything but a big fat lie and always has been for the decades repubs have hollered it for the sake of limiting select populations exercise in the voting process. Repub state legislatures are already back at the game of restricting access after the latest election.

The fraud and steal was used to whip up further support for a dying regime.
This isn't limited to 6 Jan speech, but pretty much ever utterance after the election.
One last gasp at legitimacy.

[jlisenbe]

I did not say there were no senators who had been serving a long time. Your statement was that the Capitol is "full of" them. I don't know how you define "full of", but 13 being from the last century would be 13% having served more than 20 years. That doesn't strike me as "full of". Perhaps we just see the phrase differently.

As to your term limits argument, you might have a good point. It would get rid of some incompetents, but would also get rid of some very qualified people. It's a tough call for me, but I'd probably vote for term limits right now if I had to choose.

I don't think the whole system needs an overhaul. That system is amazingly good and time tested. I think our problem is that we are becoming more and more dominated by a stupid electorate who can't see past pols who buy their votes by, for instance, borrowing money against the future to send checks to people who don't need them, or who waste valuable time trying to impeach a president who is now actually the former president, and who certainly did not do what they are foolishly accusing him of doing.

[paraclete]

It is certain your system needs reform, there is a continuous electoral cycle going on. The house terms are too short, and there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president. Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established. Electoral funding also needs reform

[jlisenbe]

there is a continuous electoral cycle going on.

That's actually not true, but I like the House terms being two years. Accountability and access to rapid change.

there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president.

Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?

Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established.

Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.

Electoral funding also needs reform

That's a touchy subject. What do you propose?

[paraclete]

That's actually not true, but I like the House terms being two years. Accountability and access to rapid change.

sounds good in theory but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things done

[

Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?

no but I think it could benefit from it too. our system is somewhat more dynamic than yours at the leadership level

Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.

our elections are administered by a federal body so the same rules apply across the nation

That's a touchy subject. What do you propose?

No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limited

[tomder55]

As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.

exactly right ... the establishment taking down a 'perceived ' usurper .

If Trump supporters think he is getting screwed he will come back stronger than ever ;elected or not .

Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.

I could give a dissertation on that subject . The cliff note version is that the framers created 2 ways to amend the Constitution . One of them is the tradition one that is initiated in Congress before the states ratify the amendment . Obviously Congress is NOT going to limit their terms . Almost all of them become filthy rich in office .

The other way to amend the Constitution has not been used since the framing . It is initiated in the State legislatures calling for a convention to amend . That gives the states sole power to write amendments and confirm them .

Here is the Article 5 text :

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

.

It is well past time for a convention of the states to convene and propose amendments ...... including term limits for both the legislative and judicial branches

I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.

In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle.

[jlisenbe]

but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things done

Good! The less the federal government does, then generally the better. The states are where most of the real governance is to be done. A strong federal government is a negative.

No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limited

Limits on advertising amounts to limits on free speech. I have no confidence in the government being that involved in elections.

[paraclete]

Good! The less the federal government does, then generally the better. The states are where most of the real governance is to be done. A strong federal government is a negative.

Limits on advertising amounts to limits on free speech. I have no confidence in the government being that involved in elections.

That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferring

[tomder55]

That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferring

no thanks . You may want Canberra making local decisions for New South Wales ,Queensland and Tasmania ..... but I don't want some clown in DC making local decisions . Why not just eliminate your states and territories ? Federalism under your plan is meaningless.

[jlisenbe]

A strong fed gov has gotten us over 30 tril in debt with much more to come. Our founders recognized that danger. Our present electorate is too dumb to stop it.