Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why do people want Trump?

Page 5 of 27 [ 424 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 27  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

20 Dec 2021, 12:22 pm

Trump was certainly an improvement regarding the regime change war policy in the Middle East -- he didn't start a new one. But he also didn't get us out of the current seven wars in which we are engaged.

He also vetoed the Yemen bill, which would have ended funding Saudi Arabia's genocide in that country.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 12:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am asking a very simple logical question. How can someone possibly lose without opposition showing up?
When their intent is to have the opposition show up, and the opposition does not fulfill their intent.

Please try to keep up.


Their intent was to capture the capitol hill and force them not to make that vote. So if nobody comes to their defense, then I don't see what would stop Trump from accomplishing this.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,800
Location: Stendec

20 Dec 2021, 12:34 pm

QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am asking a very simple logical question. How can someone possibly lose without opposition showing up?
When their intent is to have the opposition show up, and the opposition does not fulfill their intent.  Please try to keep up.
Their intent was to capture the capitol hill and force them not to make that vote. So if nobody comes to their defense, then I don't see what would stop Trump from accomplishing this.
You are finally catching on: Trump did not accomplish his goals (thus making him a loser), one of which was to overthrow the election; another was to suspend the Constitution; and still another was to engage the Left and demonize them as "The Enemy".


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 12:40 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
I am asking a very simple logical question. How can someone possibly lose without opposition showing up?
When their intent is to have the opposition show up, and the opposition does not fulfill their intent.  Please try to keep up.
Their intent was to capture the capitol hill and force them not to make that vote. So if nobody comes to their defense, then I don't see what would stop Trump from accomplishing this.
You are finally catching on: Trump did not accomplish his goals (thus making him a loser), one of which was to overthrow the election; another was to suspend the Constitution; and still another was to engage the Left and demonize them as "The Enemy".


You still didn't answer the question. Who were to stop him from capturing the capitol if the opposition didn't show up? Don't you see how illogical this is?

And also he didn't have a goal of suspending the constitution. He only had a goal to do ONE THING that might be considered unconstitutional. But constitution would be in place outside of this one thing.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,800
Location: Stendec

20 Dec 2021, 12:52 pm

QFT wrote:
Who were to stop him from capturing the capitol if the opposition didn't show up?
Obviously, it was his own followers and their ineptitude, the utter lack of a cohesive plan, an absent Commander-In-Chief, and a non-existent "enemy" to be blamed for all the destruction and violence.  The only thing that Trump's coup attempt accomplished was to obviate the impotence and and ineffectiveness of Trump and his followers.


_________________
 
I have no love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 1:05 pm

Fnord wrote:
QFT wrote:
Who were to stop him from capturing the capitol if the opposition didn't show up?
Obviously, it was his own followers and their ineptitude, the utter lack of a cohesive plan, an absent Commander-In-Chief, and a non-existent "enemy" to be blamed for all the destruction and violence.  The only thing that Trump's coup attempt accomplished was to obviate the impotence and and ineffectiveness of Trump and his followers.


No matter how weak they are, someone has to stop them in order for them not to accomplish what they wanted. So, when the vote counting got back in session that evening, what happened right before then? Who stopped those people?



SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,765
Location: Michigan

20 Dec 2021, 2:50 pm

QFT wrote:
Its the first time I hear it. Can you elaborate? Because I literally never heard this. I thought it was BLM destroying property.

I don't have any specific links, but it's not hard to find. I followed a bunch of the riots in real-time, some of them I even watched streaming. They were always peaceful protests until a bunch of white guys in trucks showed up from out-of-state (sometimes Boogaloo Boys, sometimes Proud Boys, sometimes not).
Once the violence starts, you've got hooligans from all over who see anarchy and want a piece of it.

Check out the protest in Minneapolis: everything was fine until "umbrella man" shows up out of nowhere (white guy in tactical gear, gas mask, and umbrella), casually takes a hammer to a few windows, and leaves. Everything went downhill after that.

Some people were claiming that "umbrella man" was a cop, but the man who was later caught by police turned out to be a member of the group "Aryan Cowboys".

QFT wrote:
In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

Racists destroy property at BLM protests, people start saying "Those BLM people sure do like destroying property."

It worked, didn't it?

QFT wrote:
They weren't trying to change the system. They were trying to change the outcome of one specific election.

Using a coup to change the outcome of ONE election would have ultimately set the precedence for all elections to follow.
Although if the coup had succeeded, there's a good chance that we wouldn't have elections anymore.

QFT wrote:
But cops would have gotten legal punishment they deserve even without the protests.

If that were true, we wouldn't be protesting the fact that unarmed black people get shot by cops who walk free.

QFT wrote:
Lets just say they want courts to do X. If they think it is necessary to break property in order to force courts to do X, that logically implies an attack on the court system, which is part of democracy.

That's why they were peacefully protesting and not breaking property.


_________________
I'll brave the storm to come, for it surely looks like rain...


SabbraCadabra
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,765
Location: Michigan

20 Dec 2021, 2:52 pm

QFT wrote:
Who were to stop him from capturing the capitol if the opposition didn't show up?

He didn't necessarily want to "capture" the Capitol, he wanted to start a war. The article in this thread explains it pretty clearly: viewtopic.php?t=402517


_________________
I'll brave the storm to come, for it surely looks like rain...


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Dec 2021, 2:58 pm

Why do people feel that the assault on the Capitol Building was merely an ordinary protest?

It's the Capitol that they were invading! They were conducting a vote which would make Biden the official winner of the election. These folks didn't want Biden to be the official winner. They wanted the loser to be President, instead. Sort of like a "banana republic."



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,474
Location: United Kingdom

20 Dec 2021, 3:55 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Why do people feel that the assault on the Capitol Building was merely an ordinary protest?

It's the Capitol that they were invading! They were conducting a vote which would make Biden the official winner of the election. These folks didn't want Biden to be the official winner. They wanted the loser to be President, instead. Sort of like a "banana republic."


I think it could easily have been a rigged election with how corrupt the United States is/was. I wiould argue that the United States probably already was a banana republic circa 2020 even before the election.

But regardless, the general public had no right, nor place, to be unlawfully storming a capitol building based on nothing but mainstream media propaganda (right-wing propaganda) & those involved with any violence should be pursued & punished. I haven't really followed anyone from that scenario, but I did see that the viking horn guy seemed to get his comeuppance.

I think the protest was fuelled by rage at a system/NWO/great reset that is basically trying to install authoritarianism in the United States. A system that is attempting to remove or at least reduce, the constitutional rights that Americans have had for a few hundred years and to also reduce the influence of Christianity & religion in general.

I realise the constitution did not officially appoint Christianity as the state religion, nor do I believe it should have.

It was definitely no ordinary protest. It was way bigger than mainstream media showed on television from obscure videos I have seen of footage from the day.



QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 4:23 pm

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

Racists destroy property at BLM protests, people start saying "Those BLM people sure do like destroying property."

It worked, didn't it?


I actually heard the opposite argument that some of the BLM folk or their allies protested at the Capitol in order to blame Republicans.

It really could have been both ways. Maybe both with summer riots and with Jan 6, *some* people were genuine supporters of respective political party being violent and others were the members of the other party trying to impersonate them to tarnish their name.

In fact I have read that some of the same faces were found in both rallies. Were they truly Republican or truly Democrat? Who knows. Perhaps neither: just some people paid to cause trouble or something?

As far as "umbrella man" its the first time I hear of him. If you say he damaged just a few things and then they all damaged a bunch of stuff after he left, you can't use his actions as an excuse of what they did later. Vandalism is not an appropriate response to vandalism, especially since you say he caused just a little bit of vandalism and then the rest of them did a lot more.



Last edited by QFT on 20 Dec 2021, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,444
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Dec 2021, 4:24 pm

QFT wrote:
SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Where did you get the idea that Trump starts wars on the first place.

One could argue that he set the wheels in motion.


That can be argued about other presidents too. Fact remains: the few presidents leading to Trump started wars, Trump hasn't.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
If you look at all the property BLM destroyed during summer 2020 and compare it to the property that capitol riot destroyed, you will see BLM destroyed more.

That wasn't BLM, most of the destruction was caused and/or instigated by white supremacy groups who showed up to start trouble.


Its the first time I hear it. Can you elaborate? Because I literally never heard this. I thought it was BLM destroying property.

In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Your argument is that capitol is somehow more important than businesses. In other words, we are debating which is more important: the sheer amount of property, or whom the property belongs to.

Pretty sure the Capitol is more important.
If a business gets destroyed, they typically use the insurance money to pay for repairs.
If our entire democracy gets destroyed, we're kind of in a bad place.


So did they actually do all the repairs? Has Minneapolis been rebuilt?

They weren't trying to change the system. They were trying to change the outcome of one specific election.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Also you might argue that BLM *did* try to attack democracy. Their intention was to basically blackmail courts to give the cops tougher sentences. Now, if you believe that courts represent democracy (since they were democratically elected), then forcing courts to do something they otherwise won't do would be an attack on democracy.

So you're saying that requesting that cops get the legal punishment they deserve is somehow equivalent to attempting a full-out coup with the intent of kidnapping government officials and giving them public lynchings?


But cops would have gotten legal punishment they deserve even without the protests. The point of protests seem to be to give them tougher punishment than they otherwise would be given. So isn't it also an attach on democracy, to make institutions do something they otherwise won't do?

By the way I am not saying that their punishment is too tough. I mean we are talking about murder and I am not going to say that murder deserves lesser sentence.

What I "am" trying to get to is simple logic. Forget what they want courts to do for a second. Lets just say they want courts to do X. If they think it is necessary to break property in order to force courts to do X, that logically implies an attack on the court system, which is part of democracy.
,

Those cops wouldn't have gotten the punishments they deserved with out the demonstrations. We know that because convictions of police officers for abuse and murder hardly ever happened before the public was made to wake up to it by BLM and Antifa.
Changing the outcome of the last Presidential election would probably have meant the beginning of the end of our free government, leaving the country at the mercy of a popular strongman autocracy.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 4:28 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Where did you get the idea that Trump starts wars on the first place.

One could argue that he set the wheels in motion.


That can be argued about other presidents too. Fact remains: the few presidents leading to Trump started wars, Trump hasn't.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
If you look at all the property BLM destroyed during summer 2020 and compare it to the property that capitol riot destroyed, you will see BLM destroyed more.

That wasn't BLM, most of the destruction was caused and/or instigated by white supremacy groups who showed up to start trouble.


Its the first time I hear it. Can you elaborate? Because I literally never heard this. I thought it was BLM destroying property.

In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Your argument is that capitol is somehow more important than businesses. In other words, we are debating which is more important: the sheer amount of property, or whom the property belongs to.

Pretty sure the Capitol is more important.
If a business gets destroyed, they typically use the insurance money to pay for repairs.
If our entire democracy gets destroyed, we're kind of in a bad place.


So did they actually do all the repairs? Has Minneapolis been rebuilt?

They weren't trying to change the system. They were trying to change the outcome of one specific election.

SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
Also you might argue that BLM *did* try to attack democracy. Their intention was to basically blackmail courts to give the cops tougher sentences. Now, if you believe that courts represent democracy (since they were democratically elected), then forcing courts to do something they otherwise won't do would be an attack on democracy.

So you're saying that requesting that cops get the legal punishment they deserve is somehow equivalent to attempting a full-out coup with the intent of kidnapping government officials and giving them public lynchings?


But cops would have gotten legal punishment they deserve even without the protests. The point of protests seem to be to give them tougher punishment than they otherwise would be given. So isn't it also an attach on democracy, to make institutions do something they otherwise won't do?

By the way I am not saying that their punishment is too tough. I mean we are talking about murder and I am not going to say that murder deserves lesser sentence.

What I "am" trying to get to is simple logic. Forget what they want courts to do for a second. Lets just say they want courts to do X. If they think it is necessary to break property in order to force courts to do X, that logically implies an attack on the court system, which is part of democracy.
,

Those cops wouldn't have gotten the punishments they deserved with out the demonstrations. We know that because convictions of police officers for abuse and murder hardly ever happened before the public was made to wake up to it by BLM and Antifa.
Changing the outcome of the last Presidential election would probably have meant the beginning of the end of our free government, leaving the country at the mercy of a popular strongman autocracy.


What you are basically saying is that if it is a "good cause" (such as getting cops punished) then one is allowed to use violence to achieve it, but if it is a "bad cause" (such as changing outcome of the election) then it isn't. But in this case its not really about violence. It is about all those other things. And those other things pretty much make up your mind whether you think violence is acceptable to achieve them or not. Pretty much "the end justifies the means" mentality.

Well, this being the case, together with the fact that the two parties have opposite opinions on those other things, it kinda makes sense why each party views their own violence as more acceptable than the opponent's violence. But I say that both sides being dishonest by acting this way.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,444
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Dec 2021, 4:30 pm

QFT wrote:
SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

Racists destroy property at BLM protests, people start saying "Those BLM people sure do like destroying property."

It worked, didn't it?


I actually heard the opposite argument that some of the BLM folk or their allies protested at the Capitol in order to blame Republicans.

It really could have been both ways. Maybe both with summer riots and with Jan 6, *some* people were genuine supporters of respective political party being violent and others were the members of the other party trying to impersonate them to tarnish their name.

In fact I have read that some of the same faces were found in both rallies. Were they truly Republican or truly Democrat? Who knows. Perhaps neither: just some people paid to cause trouble or something?

As far as "umbrella man" its the first time I hear of him. If you say he damaged just a few things and then they all damaged a bunch of stuff after he left, you can't use his actions as an excuse of what they did later. Vandalism is not an appropriate response to vandalism, especially since you say he caused just a little bit of vandalism and then the rest of them did a lot more.


If the destructive DC rioters were actually BLM, how come only Trump supporters were identified and prosecuted for the capitol attack?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

20 Dec 2021, 4:32 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
QFT wrote:
SabbraCadabra wrote:
QFT wrote:
In fact the whole point of destroying property was to "protest racism", so it wouldn't be logical for White Supremacy groups to do it in that particular occasion.

Racists destroy property at BLM protests, people start saying "Those BLM people sure do like destroying property."

It worked, didn't it?


I actually heard the opposite argument that some of the BLM folk or their allies protested at the Capitol in order to blame Republicans.

It really could have been both ways. Maybe both with summer riots and with Jan 6, *some* people were genuine supporters of respective political party being violent and others were the members of the other party trying to impersonate them to tarnish their name.

In fact I have read that some of the same faces were found in both rallies. Were they truly Republican or truly Democrat? Who knows. Perhaps neither: just some people paid to cause trouble or something?

As far as "umbrella man" its the first time I hear of him. If you say he damaged just a few things and then they all damaged a bunch of stuff after he left, you can't use his actions as an excuse of what they did later. Vandalism is not an appropriate response to vandalism, especially since you say he caused just a little bit of vandalism and then the rest of them did a lot more.


If the destructive DC rioters were actually BLM, how come only Trump supporters were identified and prosecuted for the capitol attack?


I don't follow the news that closely. I am only saying what I briefly read. What I read was that there were some of the same faces in the photographs. I believe they mentioned some funny faced people dressed up funny in the same exact way being in both protests or something. Why didn't they get caught? Well, they didn't catch everyone, clearly. Just a few. There were too many people to catch, wasn't there?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

20 Dec 2021, 4:50 pm

There is a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE.....that the perpetrators of the Capitol Insurrection were members of various right-wing organizations who did not want Joseph Biden to be our next President. They wanted to find some way to overturn the official results of the election by force.