Please quite using vague language. Answer the question. What do think he meant and what do you think he wants/expects to happen?
Such a loser
- Thread starter other1
- Start date
Regardless of his intent, the fact he thinks putting tariffs on imported cars is a good idea should cost him the vote of anyone with a brain. His last batch of tariffs ended up costing the US more than it helped.*
I think he just goes up on stage and adlibs everything. It's pretty obvious he's a narcissist so the possibility of a large swath of people rising up and fighting for him is probably something he'd like to see. I also think he's an embellisher and bullshit artist, so him using coded language is not really out of the ordinary.
To answer your question, i think that if he doesn't win he'd probably like to see citizens rise up and try and fight to install him in power.
*https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/04/trump-floats-more-than-60percent-tariffs-on-chinese-imports.html
(Trump’s trade war with China cost Americans an estimated $195 billion since 2018, according to the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. The economic battle also led to the loss of more than 245,000 U.S. jobs, according to the U.S.-China Business Council.)
I think he just goes up on stage and adlibs everything. It's pretty obvious he's a narcissist so the possibility of a large swath of people rising up and fighting for him is probably something he'd like to see. I also think he's an embellisher and bullshit artist, so him using coded language is not really out of the ordinary.
To answer your question, i think that if he doesn't win he'd probably like to see citizens rise up and try and fight to install him in power.
*https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/83746
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/04/trump-floats-more-than-60percent-tariffs-on-chinese-imports.html
(Trump’s trade war with China cost Americans an estimated $195 billion since 2018, according to the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. The economic battle also led to the loss of more than 245,000 U.S. jobs, according to the U.S.-China Business Council.)
So you think trump thinks his supporters would, and actually can overthrow the govt and install him as king? If not what does the bold mean?
You have no idea what they may have planned or how it might have gone astray but we know at one time there were magnotometers on the lawn to help detect weapons until he told them to take them down because they weren't there to hurt him. Well who were they there to hurt?
But here's the tell, if he didn't approve of what happened, he could have stopped it much sooner, he would have apologized for it and he sure as hell wouldn't be calling them "incredible patriots" now. Just because he's a bumbling fool doesn't mean he didn't have devious intent - he is careful enough to only strike the match without knowing how far the fire will spread so he can say he didn't know it would actually burn someone.
Thanks, Kamala. That is just a bunch of word salad that did not answer the question. So your one possible explanation is magnometers? Are you telling me you think the plan was overthrow the govt by force- but if they have metal detectors we have to call it off, lol? Is that really your argument for not using an extensive supply of guns they had available? They were prepared to confront multiple police, secret service, private security, etc - all who would be armed, but they drew the line at metal detectors?
Surely you can do better than that!
This isn't hard and I see that you ignored the second paragraph.
I don't know what Trump thinks, I'm not Miss Cleo. I would expect any narcissist to want a large gathering of followers to rise up and "defend" him in the event of a perceived slight or injustice. That's just textbook narcissistic behavior. Do I think his supporters could actually overthrow the government? Not a chance; I've seen the videos of MAGA events. I'm shocked those people know how to tie their shoes.
The bolded means I would not be surprised if his supporters rioted and another J6 was to occur. How successful their attempts would be are irrelevant. The fact is, his rhetoric emboldens people to commit violence and is a giant black eye on the peaceful transition of power that the US prides itself on.
I thought I was pretty clear. I think he wants y’all queda to try to overthrow the election when he loses, or at least intimidate/block voters in blue areas so this isnt a fair election. He knows he’s going to jail and his only chance to be a free man is to be president.
To add to your reply
Bloodbath is used in the metaphoric sense
Obviously the education some people on here have received lacks in comprehension
Don’t know how to talk to people who take the nuances of the English language and try to create division , hate and violence by fake , fiction , fantasy and plain out lying through their teeth
30 minutes ago
In every other post about Jan 6 you claim to know their intentions and what the purpose was, but now all of a sudden you claim there is no way to know what they had planned or what they intended to do?
You are just running yourself around in stupid circles.
The fact is there is no logical explanation for why a group who intended to confront a group they knew were going to be heavily armed would not attempt to use guns they had readily available.
This isn't hard and I see that you ignored the second paragraph.
In every other post about Jan 6 you claim to know their intentions and what the purpose was, but now all of a sudden you claim there is no way to know what they had planned or what they intended to do?
You are just running yourself around in stupid circles.
The fact is there is no logical explanation for why a group who intended to confront a group they knew were going to be heavily armed would not attempt to use guns they had readily available.
I was thinking I had already seen the dumbest of your posts
You have exceeded my expectations
Now you gave raised the bar
Dumb on
How are they supposed to overthrow the election? What exactly does that mean?
Also, the bold part does not match what you claim he was implying. You claim he is saying/threatening that if he loses there will be some type of violent "bloodbath" from his supporters. That would be after the election is over and would have no bearing on what happened before/during the election process.
So one minute you are saying that trumps comments that CLEARLY were in reference to the auto industry he was talking about before, during and after the word bloodbath was said, was not really about the auto industry and that you knw what he "really" meant.
Now you want to backtrack and say there is no way to know what he meant?
You can't have it both ways.
As far as having another Jan 6 occur, do you think there is even the remote possibility there will not be a very heavy police/national guard presence at the capital to keep that from happening after the election? I honestly can't imagine that being the case.
I'll never underestimate your ability to turn a straight line into a squiggle but now you're twisting my words AGAIN.
My words:
"You have no idea what they may have planned or how it might have gone astray"
Your words:
"You claim to know their intentions and what the purpose was"
We absolutely know what Trump's intentions were because we have the evidence of him planning the fake elector scheme, 60 lawsuits, a scheme to send the votes back to the states and his last ditch effort to invite the mob to the Capitol to intimidate Congress - and I clearly followed that up by saying he was a bumbling fool who didn't know exactly how it might happen but he lit the match....I can separate "HIS" plans/intentions with "THEIR" intentions/plans but they were willing to do whatever he wanted and they were in constant communication while onsite waiting for further instructions. Just stop man, you're an embarrassment.
“What makes the struggle harder and more painful is to know so many of my fellow citizens, including so many of the people I put my life at risk to defend, are downplaying or outright denying what happened,” D.C. police officer Michael Fanone said.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. I don't think I've ever mentioned anything in the bolded. I claimed he's a narcissist, and I said what I'd expect a narcissist would want to see happen.
I'm sure there will be a heavy presence at the capitol this go around, because his knuckledragging supporters have proven that they're willing to storm the Capitol in the event Trump loses. Trump spending the last 6 years claiming elections are all rigged and that the only way he can lose will be if there's fraud is definitely not reducing the chance of a potential uprising in the event of his defeat. I find it hard to believe that you don't see the harm caused by his inflammatory language.
That is just some straight bs. You have repeatedly said what happened was an insurrection, coop/attempt/treason. I'm not taking about what trump did/wanted. I am talking about the people that were at the capital. You have repeatedly made comments about their actions and intentions- not just trump. So don't give me this bs that you have only talked about what trumps intentions were, that is just a blatant lie.
Not at all. Did that overthrow the election? Funny, seems like it made no difference in the election outcome.
Then again, what would you expect from a bunch of unarmed morons against against capitol police and secret service who were well armed?
To think trump has any expectation his supporters could overturn an election is simply moronic.
What do you call a scheme to illegally overturn the results of a free and fair election?
What were the people who stormed the Capitol there to do?
If it had worked, what pretty word would you attach to it?
Again, we are talking about what the people at the capital did. I do NOT think they had any scheme to overturn the election. I do think they thought the election was stolen(admittedly in part due to trump's rhetoric) and were there to protest bc they were mad. Were there a few nut jobs there that might have been deranged and at least had subconscious intention to possibly harm someone? Absolutely. There are usually at least a few mentally unstable people in large groups. However, I think the vast. vast majority there that day had no intention of trying to overturn the election somehow.
I think things just got out of control and the mob mentality took over. I am sure there were some there trying to force the issue and get people to storm the building- which eventually happened. Show me one large protest where there was no damage done to the property in the immediate vicinity of the protest. How many millions of dollars in property dame was done in the last decade in dem protests/riots? Do you think all the people that showed up at those initially came with the specific intent to damage/loot/burn property or kill innocent people? I think a few may have, but most did not. However, the same mob mentality took over and things escalated and they did exactly that(damage/loot/burn property and kill innocent people). The only difference this time is the location was at the capitol building when it happened.
Not sure I can answer that question bc I don't think the "it" existed. Your "it" is the intent to whatever- insurrection/coop/govt overthrow/etc. and I don't think there was any intention of that by the people there that day.
Again, I am NOT defending what actually did happen. You absolutely can not storm the capitol building. The people that did deserve to be punished. Absolutely no argument there.
Blah ****ing blah - answer the question. It's fine to use the word "failed" in front of it, but what would you call it?
Their intentions aligned with Trump's intention so you can't separate the two. What did they want to happen and if it wasn't legal, what would you call it?
Okay, it was a failed protest if I have to define it. It was a protest that made no difference - which is usually the outcome of protests.
Let me ask you a question. What do you call the events that tool place in front of some of the scotus judges' homes after R v. W was overturned? Were they trying to overturn a scotus decision or overthrow the court? No. They were protesting bc they were pissed off at the result.(except for the one guy who was trying to kill one of the judges)
LOL - Hmm, how many protests call for the Vice President to be hung and 150 policemen being beaten over something that DIDN'T HAPPEN? Most protests involve something that actually happened but maybe that's just me. We know you know what the goal was, no matter how much you obfuscate and it's detestable that there are so many people just like you. It was a badly mangled "attempted coup" in search of a legal theory that failed. Period.
_____
_______
"The Oath Keepers were following Washington law by not carrying the weapons in the district, while waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the authority to deploy the military domestically for law enforcement.
The militia was waiting for orders from Trump. That was all that kept U.S. democracy safe from armed warfare that day.
SOCIAL MEDIA AS COMMAND AND CONTROL
What happened in D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, does not easily fit into typical social movement frameworks for describing mobilization. The insurrectionists behaved akin to a networked social movement, with online platforms forming the infrastructure to organize action, but its leaders were politicians and political operatives as opposed to charismatic community leaders. On that day in particular, the insurrectionists, who are closely aligned with MAGA Republicans more broadly, functioned like Trump’s volunteer army rather than a populist movement."
How Networked Incitement Fueled the January 6 Capitol Insurrection
Networked incitement, including cellphones and social media, powered the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol
Well, the protest I asked about involving scotus actually had someone arrested that was attempting to kill a scotus judge- not just chanting some stupid slogan about it.
First let me say the reason people protest is not really relevant, bc people have a right to protest about anything- even if it is stupid/wrong. But if you insist, we will stick with roe on your next point. The scotus did not rule on the constitutionality of abortion- which is what they were protesting at the scotus homes about- unless you think all those protestors were protesting about states rights, which was the basis of the roe decision. In essence, they were protesting something that did not happen.
Also, you never answered the question. What was the goal of those protesting scotus judges? Were they there to overturn a scotus ruling or overthrow the scotus? What was their goal?
Finally, as I stated before, I do not think the people there had a "goal" other than to show they were pissed off about the election. Every bit of logical evidence support that. If you were planning to take over the capitol building in some kind of coop/insurrection attempt, would you do it unarmed? Would you stop to ask directions from the cops inside about where things were located in the building or would you have know the layout when you went in? When you were inside, would you be talking selfies with your feet propped up on a desk in an office or video the building and yourself or would you be looking for the VP you supposedly wanted to kill and the people who were responsible for casting electoral votes? There are hours and hours of video of people wandering around, sitting at desks, making stupid speeches with megaphones, chanting dumb slogans, and generally doing nothing that seemed to have a planned purpose. Nothing those idiots did once they got in that building supports the idea their "goal" was some sort of coop/insurrection, and only people as dumb as you could interpret their actions that way.
The above is simply moronic and I can't believe even someone as unhinged from realty as you would buy it. It is simply beyond stupid. Even if you think trump wanted to invoke the insurrection act, that would have exactly zero bearing on the legality of any of the people at jan 6 to do anything. As is explicitly pointed out in the article, it would allow trump to use the military - not joe blow from podunk._____
_______
"The Oath Keepers were following Washington law by not carrying the weapons in the district, while waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, which gives the president the authority to deploy the military domestically for law enforcement.
The militia was waiting for orders from Trump. That was all that kept U.S. democracy safe from armed warfare that day.
SOCIAL MEDIA AS COMMAND AND CONTROL
What happened in D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, does not easily fit into typical social movement frameworks for describing mobilization. The insurrectionists behaved akin to a networked social movement, with online platforms forming the infrastructure to organize action, but its leaders were politicians and political operatives as opposed to charismatic community leaders. On that day in particular, the insurrectionists, who are closely aligned with MAGA Republicans more broadly, functioned like Trump’s volunteer army rather than a populist movement."
How Networked Incitement Fueled the January 6 Capitol Insurrection
Networked incitement, including cellphones and social media, powered the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitolwww.scientificamerican.com
You say tldr, but point out I misspelled a word. Tell me you're a liar without without telling me you're a liar, lol.TLDR and by the way, it's "coup" - coops are for chickens.
Thanks Steve
No surprise you don't want to respond or answer the question I asked.
You need to learn the difference between protest and insurrection. Protest is what Trump tear-gassed so he could take a picture.
Insurrection is Y’all Queda toppling barricades and assaulting police, forcibly entering the capital in order to overturn an election.
So someone showing up to kill a scotus falls under protest in your world? Yikes!
Also, multiple dem protests over the last decade resulted in dems toppling barricades, assaulting police, forcibly entering both private buildings and govt building, and even killing innocent people.
The bold did not happen - at least not by the idiots at the Jan 6 event.
Trump isn't fit for office either...not mentally or from a morality standpoint.
What we have this coming election is a sad state of affairs.
You really tryna compare a lone wolf or a marginalized community outraged over senseless police killings with the pathological lying leader of the free world inflaming his cult with some shit he made up in his head?
You are a joke.
Is that your go to post when you don't have have anything relevant or logical to say?
No, where did it say or imply anywhere in there I was comparing them to trump? I was comparing them to the idiots at the Jan 6 protest.
What difference does that make? A PRESIDENT asked them to come and inflamed them with traitorous rhetoric and they acted on his behalf. Stop your spinning dude, I know your game.
Who you going to simp for next - Judas Iscariot?
"You know my game", lol Are you 12 yrs old?
We were talking about protestors (not Trump) and I was comparing the one's at Jan 6 to dem protestors. Why is that hard for you to understand.
Also, you still have not answered my question about what the "goal" was of the protestors that showed up at scotus homes. What were they trying to do?
Because Dem protestors and women rightfully angry about having their rights stripped away have nothing to do with a thread about a LOSER president who uses dark rhetoric to inflame his culty base into acts of violence over things that aren't even true. That's the thread you jumped into and tried to twist to your advantage by changing the talking points. Find something else to do please - you're the most maddening poster on the board yeesh.
I'm sorry, did I compel you to reply to my post(s)? Also, you still haven't answered my question about what the dem scotus protestors' "goal" were.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
SIAP - Owner of Eagles gets emotional calling Trotter- Latest: Our Trophy Case is Bigger