Trump Impeachment Part Duex

[Ibanez]

I’m going to respond in a way Trump would - listen, loser. I said the two were different and in either case anyone encouraging violence or illegal acts should be punished. You’re the worst. You’re dense.

It’s amazing. You’ve gone full retard. Are you even reading the posts? You can’t be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said that rioters shouldn't be punished you fucking retard.
And no, I'm not reading all your TDS drivel...

You have made false equivalencies since Jan 6 and fail to open your eyes. If you aren’t going to read my posts then shut the fuck up because everything you’re accusing me of, I’ve said the opposites, quite plainly. Goddamn, how can you even debate an opponent if you don’t take the time to read their position?

Fucking Imbecile. Please, Don’t ever procreate, we dont need more low IQ, Closed minded fucks in this world.

Goddamn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

I never said that rioters shouldn't be punished you fucking retard.
And no, I'm not reading all your TDS drivel...

You have made false equivalencies since Jan 6 and fail to open your eyes. If you aren’t going to read my posts then shut the fuck up because everything you’re accusing me of, I’ve said the opposites, quite plainly. Goddamn, how can you even debate an opponent if you don’t take the time to read those position?

Fucking Imbecile. Pleas, Don’t ever procreate, we dont need more low IQ, Closed minded fucks in this world.

Goddamn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

This is an illustration of the problem with our two major party system. Members of each party care more about their party's relative position of power than they care about the country or anything else. It is obvious that Trump incited the riot. I'm not talking about his speech on January 6. If that was all he'd ever done maybe there would be a case for saying he didn't. But he started well before the election with complete bullshit that guaranteed his cult followers would be inflamed if he lost after he lost he continued with complete bullshit to inflame them more. Plus the guy is obviously unstable and unhinged. A serious danger. Any Senator that cares about the country would vote to fix it so that he can't run for office again.

I'd like to believe the Democrats would not do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot but there is a good chance that they would. Hard to say because we've never seen a Democrat President that is THIS bad. They did display a lot of hypocrisy with respect to Clinton. But Clinton did not incite a violent attempt to overturn our Democratic Republic. But it certainly wouldn't be a shock to see them really go off the deep end like the Republicans have recently if it was one of their own in power and doing really bad stuff.

[Ibanez]

This is an illustration of the problem with our two major party system. Members of each party care more about their party's relative position of power than they care about the country or anything else. It is obvious that Trump incited the riot. I'm not talking about his speech on January 6. If that was all he'd ever done maybe there would be a case for saying he didn't. But he started well before the election with complete bullshit that guaranteed his cult followers would be inflamed if he lost after he lost he continued with complete bullshit to inflame them more. Plus the guy is obviously unstable and unhinged. A serious danger. Any Senator that cares about the country would vote to fix it so that he can't run for office again.

I'd like to believe the Democrats would not do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot but there is a good chance that they would. Hard to say because we've never seen a Democrat President that is THIS bad. They did display a lot of hypocrisy with respect to Clinton. But Clinton did not incite a violent attempt to overturn our Democratic Republic. But it certainly wouldn't be a shock to see them really go off the deep end like the Republicans have recently if it was one of their own in power and doing really bad stuff.

Democrats would. They’re no better than Republicans. Two sides of the same, dirt covered coin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

This is an illustration of the problem with our two major party system. Members of each party care more about their party's relative position of power than they care about the country or anything else. It is obvious that Trump incited the riot. I'm not talking about his speech on January 6. If that was all he'd ever done maybe there would be a case for saying he didn't. But he started well before the election with complete bullshit that guaranteed his cult followers would be inflamed if he lost after he lost he continued with complete bullshit to inflame them more. Plus the guy is obviously unstable and unhinged. A serious danger. Any Senator that cares about the country would vote to fix it so that he can't run for office again.

I'd like to believe the Democrats would not do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot but there is a good chance that they would. Hard to say because we've never seen a Democrat President that is THIS bad. They did display a lot of hypocrisy with respect to Clinton. But Clinton did not incite a violent attempt to overturn our Democratic Republic. But it certainly wouldn't be a shock to see them really go off the deep end like the Republicans have recently if it was one of their own in power and doing really bad stuff.

Democrats would. They’re no better than Republicans. Two sides of the same, feces covered coin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYP

I started reading JSO's post and I got my hopes up when he didn't begin by immediately bashing Trump that he was finally going to post something that wasn't blaming Trump for all the world's ills. But low and behold, it wasn't to be. Shame on me for getting my hopes up. I will take solace in the fact that he made it to his third sentence before bashing Trump which is probably a record for a JSO Poly Board post in the last 50 or so months.

[BDKJMU]

I never said that rioters shouldn't be punished you fucking retard.
And no, I'm not reading all your TDS drivel...

You have made false equivalencies since Jan 6 and fail to open your eyes. If you aren’t going to read my posts then shut the fuck up because everything you’re accusing me of, I’ve said the opposites, quite plainly. Goddamn, how can you even debate an opponent if you don’t take the time to read their position?

Fucking Imbecile. Please, Don’t ever procreate, we dont need more low IQ, Closed minded fucks in this world.

Goddamn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you're the one that since 1/6 that has said with ZERO proof that Trump incited a riot. Like you like to say in regards to conk allegations of voter fraud, where’s the proof? Where's the evidence? And don't give me some BS look at his rhetoric the month prior to 1/6, he said the word "fight" blah blah. Where did he say "Go storm/attack the Capitol"?

[JohnStOnge]

Democrats would. They’re no better than Republicans. Two sides of the same, feces covered coin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYP

I started reading JSO's post and I got my hopes up when he didn't begin by immediately bashing Trump that he was finally going to post something that wasn't blaming Trump for all the world's ills. But low and behold, it wasn't to be. Shame on me for getting my hopes up. I will take solace in the fact that he made it to his third sentence before bashing Trump which is probably a record for a JSO Poly Board post in the last 50 or so months.

Do you not think, when contemplating what has happened from the point at which Trump started saying that the only way he could lose was fraud, that Trump's behavior was a causative factor in what happened on January 6? No sane person can say, with a straight face, that what happened on January 6 would have happened if Trump had not behaved in the way that he did. Do you want me to ignore that?

The reason I "bash" Trump and have done so since early on during his Presidential run is that he and the population of people who support him are a serious problem for the United States. They are an existential threat. It's not a small thing. It's serious.

[SeattleGriz]

And there's no evidene that Trump incited any of that.
-FBI said was planned days beforehand.
-It started before Trump finished speaking.
-In Trumps entire 1 hr, 13 min speech, the only comments he said in regards to the Capital were:


https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/do ... -january-6
So where's the incitement to go storm the Capitol Building?

Nothing Trump said or did comes even close to convictable incitement in a real court, and it doesn't in this kangaroo court either..

You can read his own tweets and hear his speeches. If you don't believe that those words and actions could INSPIRE someone to act, then you're a fool. He had already given tacit approval to violence by his supporters (Charlottesville, Million MAGA Marches). He told them you have to strength and fight.

"You have to fight like hell or won't have a country anymore." Saying that to amped up supporters that believe the election was stolen and the country is in danger is dangerous.

"When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules." you don't see how someone can take that as approval from the Commander in Chief? There are tweets, indictments, interviews of people that were at the Rally and part of the riot that said just that. They were following Trump's orders.

We have to be accountable for our words and actions. Otherwise, I can avoid trouble if someone hears me say I wish Person X would get beaten and then that person then goes and does it.

You're just ignoring a hard truth. Trumps actions and words over the past several months inspired people to act on his behalf. I don't see how you can say otherwise.


Oh, to your question

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, 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.

If you don't see his past conduct as a provocation, then I don't know what more to say.

You so sure on your stance?

[Ibanez]

You have made false equivalencies since Jan 6 and fail to open your eyes. If you aren’t going to read my posts then shut the fuck up because everything you’re accusing me of, I’ve said the opposites, quite plainly. Goddamn, how can you even debate an opponent if you don’t take the time to read their position?

Fucking Imbecile. Please, Don’t ever procreate, we dont need more low IQ, Closed minded fucks in this world.

Goddamn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you're the one that since 1/6 that has said with ZERO proof that Trump incited a riot. Like you like to say in regards to conk allegations of voter fraud, where’s the proof? Where's the evidence? And don't give me some BS look at his rhetoric the month prior to 1/6, he said the word "fight" blah blah. Where did he say "Go storm/attack the Capitol"?

So we’re ignoring past behavior now? Now past comments mean nothing? Past behavior means nothing? Boy, I hope you’re consistent and don’t use Biden’s last comments to show a pattern of lies or anything. I’m sure you have the integrity and honor to jot hold anyone to their past words or behavior.

Good to know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

You can read his own tweets and hear his speeches. If you don't believe that those words and actions could INSPIRE someone to act, then you're a fool. He had already given tacit approval to violence by his supporters (Charlottesville, Million MAGA Marches). He told them you have to strength and fight.

"You have to fight like hell or won't have a country anymore." Saying that to amped up supporters that believe the election was stolen and the country is in danger is dangerous.

"When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules." you don't see how someone can take that as approval from the Commander in Chief? There are tweets, indictments, interviews of people that were at the Rally and part of the riot that said just that. They were following Trump's orders.

We have to be accountable for our words and actions. Otherwise, I can avoid trouble if someone hears me say I wish Person X would get beaten and then that person then goes and does it.

You're just ignoring a hard truth. Trumps actions and words over the past several months inspired people to act on his behalf. I don't see how you can say otherwise.


Oh, to your question



If you don't see his past conduct as a provocation, then I don't know what more to say.

You so sure on your stance?

Haha why’d you delete calling long me St.Onge? I can admit I’m wrong with that one. I’m man enough to admit a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

You so sure on your stance?

Haha why’d you delete calling long me St.Onge? I can admit I’m wrong with that one. I’m man enough to admit a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just couldn't say it in a joking friendly way. Sometimes it's better to start over than try to salvage a flawed attempt at flipping shit.

[BDKJMU]

And you're the one that since 1/6 that has said with ZERO proof that Trump incited a riot. Like you like to say in regards to conk allegations of voter fraud, where’s the proof? Where's the evidence? And don't give me some BS look at his rhetoric the month prior to 1/6, he said the word "fight" blah blah. Where did he say "Go storm/attack the Capitol"?

So we’re ignoring past behavior now? Now past comments mean nothing? Past behavior means nothing? Boy, I hope you’re consistent and don’t use Biden’s last comments to show a pattern of lies or anything. I’m sure you have the integrity and honor to jot hold anyone to their past words or behavior.

Good to know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Trump said during his 1/6 speech:

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

No we‘re not ignoring past behavior. But nothing Trump said during that speech, or prior, would get him convicted in court of incitement.

Just like you were whenver there was accusations of voter fraud made over the last 3 months- where‘s the proof? Where‘s the proof that would convict in court?

[kalm]

So we’re ignoring past behavior now? Now past comments mean nothing? Past behavior means nothing? Boy, I hope you’re consistent and don’t use Biden’s last comments to show a pattern of lies or anything. I’m sure you have the integrity and honor to jot hold anyone to their past words or behavior.

Good to know.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What Trump said during his 1/6 speech:

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

No we‘re not ignoring past behavior. But nothing Trump said during that speech, or prior, would get him convicted in court of incitement.

Just like you were whenver there was accusations of voter fraud made over the last 3 months- where‘s the proof? Where‘s the proof that would convict in court?

I agree with BDK. How could he incite a riot when he thought it was Antifa?

https://jhb.house.gov/news/documentsing ... M9l1WvtKTE

[Ibanez]

Haha why’d you delete calling long me St.Onge? I can admit I’m wrong with that one. I’m man enough to admit a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just couldn't say it in a joking friendly way. Sometimes it's better to start over than try to salvage a flawed attempt at flipping shit.

I wouldn’t have taken it that way from you. You’re good, buddy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

What Trump said during his 1/6 speech: No we‘re not ignoring past behavior. But nothing Trump said during that speech, or prior, would get him convicted in court of incitement.

Just like you were whenver there was accusations of voter fraud made over the last 3 months- where‘s the proof? Where‘s the proof that would convict in court?

I agree with BDK. How could he incite a riot when he thought it was Antifa?

https://jhb.house.gov/news/documentsing ... M9l1WvtKTE

I read that. It makes no difference. Republicans and Democrats are entrenched in their camps and have zero spine when it comes to telling truth to power or holding them accountable.

Trump was right - he could murder someone and the Republicans would still suck his jock to the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I agree with BDK. How could he incite a riot when he thought it was Antifa?

https://jhb.house.gov/news/documentsing ... M9l1WvtKTE

I read that. It makes no difference. Republicans and Democrats are entrenched in their camps and have zero spine when it comes to telling truth to power or holding them accountable.

Trump was right - he could murder someone and the Republicans would still suck his jock to the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s an updated and interesting take on the psychology of Trump and his followers. There’s an underlying explanation for why this will all take a while to unwind: damaged goods. We all are to an extent but some clearly more than others. The remedy is removal from the negative influence and improving their standards of living. (The notion that there are few fat and happy terrorists still rings true)

There are no positive long term effects for keeping Trump in the limelight yet R’s like Graham and McCarthy continue to kiss the ring. That is NOT a good thing for the party or the country.

“What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?

The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.

“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.“

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ZyfqmxLlck

[SeattleGriz]

I read that. It makes no difference. Republicans and Democrats are entrenched in their camps and have zero spine when it comes to telling truth to power or holding them accountable.

Trump was right - he could murder someone and the Republicans would still suck his jock to the end.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s an updated and interesting take on the psychology of Trump and his followers. There’s an underlying explanation for why this will all take a while to unwind: damaged goods. We all are to an extent but some clearly more than others. The remedy is removal from the negative influence and improving their standards of living. (The notion that there are few fat and happy terrorists still rings true)

There are no positive long term effects for keeping Trump in the limelight yet R’s like Graham and McCarthy continue to kiss the ring. That is NOT a good thing for the party or the country.

“What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?

The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.

“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.“

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ZyfqmxLlck

I can sum Trump up for you easily. He did what he said he was going to do and he fully exposed the establishment's bullshit for what it was. No symbiosis or psychosis required - whoever came up with those terms is really reaching for excuses.

When the establishment starts representing the voters as they should, even marginally, people like Trump will no longer be needed.

[kalm]

Some more evidence...This shit is fascinating and not surprising except the numbers. Clinging to a culture that ain’t ever coming back (change is inevitable anyway) and willingness to support violence as a necessary political tool is no way to go through life, son.

“The mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol may have been a fringe group of extremists, but politically motivated violence has the support of a significant share of the U.S. public, according to a new survey by the American Enterprise Institute.

The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."

That result was "a really dramatic finding," says Daniel Cox, director of the AEI Survey Center on American Life. "I think any time you have a significant number of the public saying use of force can be justified in our political system, that's pretty scary."

[kalm]

Here’s an updated and interesting take on the psychology of Trump and his followers. There’s an underlying explanation for why this will all take a while to unwind: damaged goods. We all are to an extent but some clearly more than others. The remedy is removal from the negative influence and improving their standards of living. (The notion that there are few fat and happy terrorists still rings true)

There are no positive long term effects for keeping Trump in the limelight yet R’s like Graham and McCarthy continue to kiss the ring. That is NOT a good thing for the party or the country.

“What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?

The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.

“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.“

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ZyfqmxLlck

I can sum Trump up for you easily. He did what he said he was going to do and he fully exposed the establishment's bullshit for what it was. No symbiosis or psychosis required - whoever came up with those terms is really reaching for excuses.

When the establishment starts representing the voters as they should, even marginally, people like Trump will no longer be needed.

There’s some truth here.

The psychology just confirms it.

[SeattleGriz]

Gotta love Democrats. Said they wanted to call witnesses to testify to alleged Trump statements, until Ted Cruz threatened to call Pelosi to the stand and make her answer to why she turned down Trump's offer to provide 10,000 National Guard troops in addition to her security briefings.

If that doesn't tell you all you need to know about this "trial".

[JohnStOnge]

It was not the first time, that day, that the news networks played those full remarks depicted on the right side. I have seen them a number of times on various news networks. The statement "There were very fine people on both sides" remains a problem for him because the whole point of the episode was White Nationalism. From the standpoint of people who don't like White Nationalism, the Statement that there were "fine people" on the side of those who organized the "Unite the Right" rally is very questionable. I think that if you Google around on the Unite the Right rally you will find that the consensus is that it was a White Nationalist and/or White Supremacist effort.

[JohnStOnge]

And you're the one that since 1/6 that has said with ZERO proof that Trump incited a riot.

Are you serious? Trump incited that riot in plain view. He spent months ginning up resentment with false claims about voter fraud. He was even doing it before the election happened with that "only way we lose is fraud" nonsense. Then he started telling his cult members to show up at the Capitol. I was telling people as inauguration day neared that I was concerned that they would try to do something like they ended up doing. It was obvious.

Now, Trump wasn't the only one doing the incitement. HIs allies were doing it too. Like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and the absolute nonsense they spouted. But Trump was the leader. The center. He OBVIOUSLY incited that riot.

[BDKJMU]

And you're the one that since 1/6 that has said with ZERO proof that Trump incited a riot.

Are you serious? Trump incited that riot in plain view. He spent months ginning up resentment with false claims about voter fraud. He was even doing it before the election happened with that "only way we lose is fraud" nonsense. Then he started telling his cult members to show up at the Capitol. I was telling people as inauguration day neared that I was concerned that they would try to do something like they ended up doing. It was obvious.

Now, Trump wasn't the only one doing the incitement. HIs allies were doing it too. Like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell and the absolute nonsense they spouted. But Trump was the leader. The center. He OBVIOUSLY incited that riot.

Is there a smoking gun: Trump: “Go out and storm the Capitol”? NO. Here's what he said about marching over to the Capitol:

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

Has Trump been convicted in a court of law of inciting a riot? NO

That means all you have is your OPINION that Trump incited a riot. And unless he is convicted in a court of law, that is all you will have.
No different than those of us that believe in the voter fraud (enough to overturn the election). Without that glaring smoking gun, and without it being proven in court, all we have is our opinions.

[SeattleGriz]

It was not the first time, that day, that the news networks played those full remarks depicted on the right side. I have seen them a number of times on various news networks. The statement "There were very fine people on both sides" remains a problem for him because the whole point of the episode was White Nationalism. From the standpoint of people who don't like White Nationalism, the Statement that there were "fine people" on the side of those who organized the "Unite the Right" rally is very questionable. I think that if you Google around on the Unite the Right rally you will find that the consensus is that it was a White Nationalist and/or White Supremacist effort.

Except the part where he SPECIFICALLY called out white nationalist. How many times does he need to denounce them for it to count in your mind? 100? 1000? How about you pick a number?

Hell, Richard Spencer, a white nationalist endorsed Biden. Therefore he must be a white nationalist supporter. When will Biden denounce him?

Biden eulogized a KKK member in Robert Byrd! Biden obviously supports the KKK as well.

[AZGrizFan]

Some more evidence...This shit is fascinating and not surprising except the numbers. Clinging to a culture that ain’t ever coming back (change is inevitable anyway) and willingness to support violence as a necessary political tool is no way to go through life, son.

“The mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol may have been a fringe group of extremists, but politically motivated violence has the support of a significant share of the U.S. public, according to a new survey by the American Enterprise Institute.

The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that "if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."

That result was "a really dramatic finding," says Daniel Cox, director of the AEI Survey Center on American Life. "I think any time you have a significant number of the public saying use of force can be justified in our political system, that's pretty scary."

Why is that drastic? It’s literally spelled out right in the Declaration of Independence.