Democrats: What if?

[Eliza Thomason]

For @ Uncle Ave, and others abroad who may have not heard a point of view other than the mainstream media. There are alternative reporters, including, this time, but not every time for sure, Fox News (I think they see the writing on the wall that the media is about to be CLEANSED, and they are endeavoring to stay in the game!) (That is just my take on it).. so here are some TRUE versions reality here:





/\ Good point about the Media and the Democratic party: "Authoritarianism cloaked as moral righteousness". And a perfect example of this from a Mississippi Democratic Rep: Senators (who happen to be Republican) should be put on the "no fly" list, typically reserved for terrorists! It's insane. Truly, the Democratic leaders in this country are the driving force of the Cancel Culture of our day. America was great when freedom of speech was respected!

[xerxe]

Is this what the Internet is going to look like for the next four years?

[Eliza Thomason]

Kat Kerr, the pink hair lady... she is another favorite of mine since I discovered her recently. Interesting that an earthquake was at the Red Sea this week, because for months now prophets have been calling this prayer experience/election crisis a "Red Sea experience".

[Uncle Ave]

Thanks for explaining Uncle Ave. Where are you located? I am curious to know.

Truly the world is watching to see what will happen in America now. But what you are hearing is from mainstream media in America, from whence comes the vast majority of news. And just like what you see of us from Hollywood, it does NOT represent mainstream America. Mainstream America voted for Trump by a landslide; and what you hear to the contrary is a big LIE, which will soon be exposed. It is not exposed yet, only hinted at by reports that are vigorously denied, and so vigilantly that YouTube has a banner on any video on President that "Biden has been elected our next president!" How ridiculous! But they are desperate because they know it is about to crash down on them. They believe if you tell a lie often enough, it will be believed, and they will hold onto that mission until there is no one left who can believe them.

Yes, the evidence of the truth of the election is now suppressed, but not for long. The real election facts WILL become unbelievable, I am predicating. I don't expect you to believe me until you see the facts. I am saying it now so that you can be forewarned, and when you are surprised by truth, along with everyone else, you will have already heard that many, many people predicted this will come to pass.

But did you notice how our own President is silenced and censored? They say that people are realizing that if the very President of America can be silenced, then so can they, the regular folk.

A few places have not yet been censored and are able to speak and make videos, since, thank God, we are not YET North Korea and Communist China. Like this, from an independent network:

I'm from Belgium.

Also, I don't think Trump being censored is anything comparable to communist China. First of all, he isn't being censored by government, but by tech platforms, which are private companies that can censor whoever they want. These platforms don't have a free speech clause. The first amendment only deals with government censorship.

Also, he is getting censored, like I was debating with End in another thread, for inciting a mob - not simply for expressing controversial opinions and such. He has done that for four years and no censorship from the part of these tech platforms. The average person shouldn't fear being censored to the same extent, though I am not denying that cancel culture is a thing, but this isn't about SJWs being offended, it's about Trump, Guiliani, and so forth, inciting a riot. So this isn't at all the same thing that the average person fears. Trump is a master at playing victim, which gets many mainstream Americans to identify with him, but in reality this is just introjection and identification. I'm not suggesting Trump calculates this, but he feels it, and he gets people to pity and sympathize with him even if he's a billionaire who has gotten there by being dishonest no less, and I see decent people relate to him like he's some kind of rich version of themselves. People can identify with who they want, of course, I just find this strange.

Also, what information do you have that the election was frauded? You're right I don't believe this, because I haven't seen proof, and you're right that if I saw legit proof my mind would change. Alot of conspiracy theorists seem to suggest that the absence of proof is "proof" someone is hiding something - how do I debate that? (not saying you're doing this btw, Eliza) There just isn't any way to convince some people.

[lkdhf qkb]

Also, he is getting censored, like I was debating with End in another thread, for inciting a mob - not simply for expressing controversial opinions and such. He has done that for four years and no censorship from the part of these tech platforms. The average person shouldn't fear being censored to the same extent, though I am not denying that cancel culture is a thing, but this isn't about SJWs being offended, it's about Trump, Guiliani, and so forth, inciting a riot. So this isn't at all the same thing that the average person fears. Trump is a master at playing victim, which gets many mainstream Americans to identify with him, but in reality this is just introjection and identification. I'm not suggesting Trump calculates this, but he feels it, and he gets people to pity and sympathize with him even if he's a billionaire who has gotten there by being dishonest no less, and I see decent people relate to him like he's some kind of rich version of themselves. People can identify with who they want, of course, I just find this strange.

Thanks for your very interesting post. I feel like there is some kind of resonance phenomena between Trump and his supporters that goes beyond 'what he Trump has done' or 'who Trump is'. After decades of being bombarded with anxiogenic news about the climate, wars, the economy, immigration by the media I think most people feel a lot of anxiety towards the future, and that's what Trump is unconsciously catering to. He is, in a way the little boy or little girl inside people who says 'I don't know how to deal with all these problems, I'm afraid, I'm a victim, help me, look at what all these other people do that's unfair and wrong, I wouldn't be in that situation otherwise' and that's what people identify with. That's what people support and admire, he's the only one to be openly afraid and suspicious.

How could anyone have fallen so low as to think that fear and wariness are political bravery? That's beyond me.

[xerxe]

Even if the election was secretly rigged, getting a third-party to verify the results should raise the same suspicions, and it would be just as logical to accuse the third-party inspectors of rigging the inspection.

[YXPR]

This is why religion scares me.

[Adam Strange]

Even if the election was secretly rigged, getting a third-party to verify the results should raise the same suspicions, and it would be just as logical to accuse the third-party inspectors of rigging the inspection.

The correct question to ask when faced with doubters like this is, "Who would you believe regarding the facts in this case?"

If they refer to their original source of information, then you are dealing with a closed mind. You can then stop wasting your time with them.


The genius of Trump calling news services "FAKE NEWS" when they report the truth and he lies and lies, is that his followers now have a reason to believe exactly what they want to believe, without those pesky facts getting in the way.

And yes, @YXPR, this is exactly like religion.

When they follow the leader without question and drink the Kool-Aid*, then it's Evangelicism. When they extend their beliefs into politics, it's Authoritarianism.



*Kool-Aid reference, for those under 40: https://www.businessinsider.com/drin...ssacre-2018-11

[xerxe]

The correct question to ask when faced with doubters like this is, "Who would you believe regarding the facts in this case?"

If they refer to their original source of information, then you are dealing with a closed mind. You can then stop wasting your time with them.


The genius of Trump calling news services "FAKE NEWS" when they report the truth and he lies and lies, is that his followers now have a reason to believe exactly what they want to believe, without those pesky facts getting in the way.

They're whipped into such a frenzy. They understand the epistemological issue just fine when it comes to false rape accusations.

[peteronfireee]

The correct question to ask when faced with doubters like this is, "Who would you believe regarding the facts in this case?"

If they refer to their original source of information, then you are dealing with a closed mind. You can then stop wasting your time with them.

The genius of Trump calling news services "FAKE NEWS" when they report the truth and he lies and lies, is that his followers now have a reason to believe exactly what they want to believe, without those pesky facts getting in the way.

And yes, @YXPR, this is exactly like religion.

When they follow the leader without question and drink the Kool-Aid*, then it's Evangelicism. When they extend their beliefs into politics, it's Authoritarianism.

*Kool-Aid reference, for those under 40: https://www.businessinsider.com/drin...ssacre-2018-11

Some people start with a premise then look for supporting facts. Other people start with facts and don't make a conclusion until all facts are gathered. Both approaches can work, it largely depends on how your brain processes information.

The bad thing with the first approach is you have this precise castle where I have a specific answer to this-and-that, but which wouldn't reflect reality. It's why a discipline in empiricism is necessary.

The second approach is also debilitated in a different way. It will judge right-off in a very binary and oversimplified form without precedent or reflection. "Yes that's good, do that" or "No, throw that away" is the binary preoccupation in its mind. Nuance is indeed omitted, and things are dealt with at face value.

I also don't blindly "follow the leader without question" (Trump). I look at multiple sources.

Nor do I do that with religion either. So that's inaccurate as well.

The genius of Trump calling news services "FAKE NEWS" when they report the truth and he lies and lies, is that his followers now have a reason to believe exactly what they want to believe, without those pesky facts getting in the way.

News is biased

[peteronfireee]

Also, I don't think Trump being censored is anything comparable to communist China. First of all, he isn't being censored by government, but by tech platforms, which are private companies that can censor whoever they want. These platforms don't have a free speech clause. The first amendment only deals with government censorship.

--There was a speech Trump made yesterday in regards to future protests (particularly next week). Most people were unaware that it even took place. The tech platforms help a lot since most people get their news from social media

--It's not just the impact today (it's just the beginning) but the deeper implications for the future (what could this evolve to?)

--There's a double standard. I have plenty of examples from previous years (and even Obama) where violent words were used (or at least they could be interpreted as such) and they weren't censored.

--Trump's words *at the rally* didn't incite violence. This is important because he is being impeached for *this specific* event. He uses the words "Peacefully" and "Patriotically" to "Cheer On" and "Encourage," the people in the Capitol, which the media never mentions.

--Some FBI stuff is coming out btw, which suggests that this stuff may have been pre-planned before the rally. Which means Trumps' speech wouldn't have mattered anyway. Which means fast last-minute impeachments are stupid.

[peteronfireee]

Every democrat voted to impeach, which includes 10 republicans. 232-197.

Trump isn't removed from office, but he's going to trial in the senate.

There's a couple problems with this:

1. The senate is out of session until the 19th. The soonest date an impeachment trial could be pulled off is the 20th.
2. By this time, Biden will be president and Trump will be a private citizen.

So basically they're having a trial to remove someone who isn't president LOL

Again, I believe instead of dropping the case they will continue forward for several reasons:

1. To prevent Trump from running in the future
2. For revenge for all "the havoc" Trump has caused
3. They secretly want Trump still out in the open public so the nation can "stand together and unite" against BOOGEYMAN Trump

[xerxe]

When they follow the leader without question and drink the Kool-Aid*, then it's Evangelicism. When they extend their beliefs into politics, it's Authoritarianism.

While we're on the subject, these people would accept the science of climate change if an edict came down from their church or another authoritarian institution.

Thankfully, top military officers have recognized climate change as a national security threat (the United States is going to be one of the hardest-hit countries). I can only hope that this recognition—by a masculine authority figure—would lead to wider acceptance.

[Adam Strange]

While we're on the subject, these people would accept the science of climate change if an edict came down from their church or another authoritarian institution.

Thankfully, top military officers have recognized climate change as a national security threat (the United States is going to be one of the hardest-hit countries). I can only hope that this recognition—by a masculine authority figure—would lead to wider acceptance.

Remember, Authoritarians would (and did) feed poisonous Kool-Aid to their kids if their leaders told them to do it, so obeying an edict from god to not burn carbon six days a week is not out of the question. Right now, they are resisting wearing masks, despite the fact that going unmasked increases the chances of the death of the people living with them. It's "Whatever the leader says, goes".

The instructions have to come from someone whom they consider an authority figure. Someone who has proven to them that they share their Authoritarian views. Like Fox News AND their church, if the edict is really restricting. Which "No carbon burning" is.

If the Authority is tough and punitive, all the better, because then, that Authority will smite their enemies even harder than they are smiting the true believers. And that's the whole point.


I know a Russian, super smart guy, his grandfather was Russian nobility, who admires Stalin. I asked him, "Didn't Stalin kill millions of Russians?"
His reply: "Those people needed to die."

And there you have it.

[Subteigh]

Every democrat voted to impeach, which includes 10 republicans. 232-197.

Trump isn't removed from office, but he's going to trial in the senate.

There's a couple problems with this:

1. The senate is out of session until the 19th. The soonest date an impeachment trial could be pulled off is the 20th.
2. By this time, Biden will be president and Trump will be a private citizen.

So basically they're having a trial to remove someone who isn't president LOL

Again, I believe instead of dropping the case they will continue forward for several reasons:

1. To prevent Trump from running in the future
2. For revenge for all "the havoc" Trump has caused
3. They secretly want Trump still out in the open public so the nation can "stand together and unite" against BOOGEYMAN Trump

Doesn't a successful impeachment merely mean the individual can be prosecuted by the Senate?

The justification the House gave for pursuing the impeachment process was the 14th amendment: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/14th-ame...hy-it-matters/

It would be a bad precedent not to prosecute a bad president for failing in their duty simply because they are no longer in office.

[peteronfireee]

While we're on the subject, these people would accept the science of climate change if an edict came down from their church or another authoritarian institution.

Thankfully, top military officers have recognized climate change as a national security threat (the United States is going to be one of the hardest-hit countries). I can only hope that this recognition—by a masculine authority figure—would lead to wider acceptance.

It's a little more nuanced.

1. Some believe in climate change, some don't. Some do but don't think humans contribute much. Some think humans contribute enough but are unsure how much change we can contribute.

2. Nothing from American politics can be done to solve global climate change. You can solve regional environmental problems, like how Los Angeles cleaned up its air and water, but Los Angeles has no control on how much garbage India sends into the atmosphere and never will.

If there is a solution, it would come from technology, not voting for politicians.

If the Authority is tough and punitive, all the better, because then, that Authority will smite their enemies even harder than they are smiting the true believers. And that's the whole point.

Whatever helps you sleep at night Adam

[peteronfireee]

Doesn't a successful impeachment merely mean the individual can be prosecuted by the Senate?

The justification the House gave for pursuing the impeachment process was the 14th amendment: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/14th-ame...hy-it-matters/

It would be a bad precedent not to prosecute a bad president for failing in their duty simply because they are no longer in office.

The usual procedure takes months of hearings, committees and meetings before a senate trial takes place. This time it was done in lightning time, which is unfair IMO

[Adam Strange]

It's a little more nuanced.

1. Some believe in climate change, some don't. Some do but don't think humans contribute much. Some think humans contribute enough but are unsure how much change we can contribute.

2. Nothing from American politics can be done to solve global climate change. You can solve regional environmental problems, like how Los Angeles cleaned up its air and water, but Los Angeles has no control on how much garbage India sends into the atmosphere and never will.

If there is a solution, it would come from technology, not voting for politicians.

Whatever helps you sleep at night Adam

I'm a strong believer in fitting my beliefs to evidence.

Anyway, I personally think that Authoritarian governments are better equipped to deal with climate change, because reversing climate change will be difficult and expensive in the short term, and democracies are simply not as good as dictatorships at acting against the interests of the people.

And if you tell people what they will have to sacrifice to reduce climate change due to carbon-burning, they will bail on the project. "Costs too much. Let's wait for a miracle."

[Subteigh]

The usual procedure takes months of hearings, committees and meetings before a senate trial takes place. This time it was done in lightning time, which is unfair IMO

The impeachment process is merely the process by which the House decides if the individual can be prosecuted or not. Private citizens don't even have that. I don't see what fairness has to do with it.

Also, the individual concerned was happy to rush through a Supreme Court appointment and several executions.

[xerxe]

Remember, Authoritarians would feed poisonous Kool-Aid to their kids if their leaders told them to do it, so an edict from god to not burn carbon six days a week is not out of the question.

It has to come from someone whom they consider an authority figure. Someone who has proven to them that they share their Authoritarian views. Like Fox News.

It has occurred to me (and lots of others, probably) that the lack of highly established, universal institutions could have created this mess. These institutions could be state-owned news networks, monopolistic industrial firms, and even school uniforms, all of which give the impression that society is being guided by the firm hand of a steadfast authority.

Instead, we have the 'marketplace of ideas', which offers bespoke politics that caters to the most extreme forms of people's most extreme idiosyncrasies. And many people just happen to have idiosyncrasies that hew so close to fascism.

[xerxe]

2. Nothing from American politics can be done to solve global climate change. You can solve regional environmental problems, like how Los Angeles cleaned up its air and water, but Los Angeles has no control on how much garbage India sends into the atmosphere and never will.

If there is a solution, it would come from technology, not voting for politicians.

I don't see how. Politicians are the people who give subsidies to technology research. They're also the people who create tax incentives for companies and individuals to switch to alternative forms of energy.

China's interventionist economy has already allowed it to become the world's leading manufacturer of green technology (like solar panels). China (and India) have also undertaken massive forestation projects. China isn't a stellar example of carbon-neutrality yet, but it's at least taking the issue seriously, in part because it'll be among the hard-hit countries (along with India and the United States).

[peteronfireee]

I'm a strong believer in fitting my beliefs to evidence.

We all feel you seething in anger gnashing ur teeth when it comes to Christians

Anyway, I personally think that Authoritarian governments are better equipped to deal with climate change, because reversing climate change will be difficult and expensive in the short term, and democracies are simply not as good as dictatorships at acting against the interests of the people.

And if you tell people what they will have to sacrifice to reduce climate change due to carbon-burning, they will bail on the project. "Costs too much. Let's wait for a miracle."

How are we going to convince the rest of the world (ex: Russia, China, India to stop polluting) via American politics?

[peteronfireee]

The impeachment process is merely the process by which the House decides if the individual can be prosecuted or not. Private citizens don't even have that. I don't see what fairness has to do with it.

Because Trump literally says "PEACEFUL" in his speech but its being twisted into violence lol...

[Adam Strange]

We all feel you seething in anger gnashing ur teeth when it comes to Christians

I don't hate Christians. Technically, I am one. I think they are an improvement over what we had before them.

How are we going to convince the rest of the world (ex: Russia, China, India to stop polluting) via American politics?

We could give them free nuclear reactors, or heavily subsidize solar panel production, as @xerxe said. That's what I'd do, but then, I don't hate Russians or Chinese either.

How would you convince them to give up carbon-burning?

[Adam Strange]

Because Trump literally says "PEACEFUL" in his speech but its being twisted into violence lol...

Someone else literally mentioned "Peace" in their speeches, but their words were twisted into violence.

https://politicalscience.osu.edu/fac...r/HITPEACE.pdf

[peteronfireee]

Someone else literally mentioned "Peace" in their speeches, but their words were twisted into violence.

https://politicalscience.osu.edu/fac...r/HITPEACE.pdf

Please.

Obama literally said "if they bring knives, we bring guns"

[peteronfireee]

I don't hate Christians. Technically, I am one. I think they are an improvement over what we had before them.

Lol

We could give them free nuclear reactors, or heavily subsidize solar panel production, as @xerxe said. That's what I'd do, but then, I don't hate Russians or Chinese either.

How would you convince them to give up carbon-burning?

technology that will either solve climate change or slow it way down to the point where it’s not a big deal.

[Adam Strange]

Please.

Obama literally said "if they bring knives, we bring guns"

He did say that, and about Republican verbal attacks on Democrats.

But why didn't a mob of black liberals with guns storm the Capitol during Trump's inauguration?

[Adam Strange]

Lol

technology that will either solve climate change or slow it way down to the point where it’s not a big deal.

I hope so, but I think it's more likely that climate change will wreak increasingly larger amounts of damage on the economy, and the costs incurred in dealing with the damage will rise to the point where people will be less able to afford to burn carbon.

[peteronfireee]

He did say that, and about Republican verbal attacks on Democrats.

But why didn't a mob of black liberals with guns storm the Capitol during Trump's inauguration?

first u shit on Christians even though u claim to be one

And now u fail to see ur own shit. The biggest stinkiest piece of Turd at that

u are literally proving ur delusion Adam.

Im just wondering who ur gonna bitch and moan about in the next 4 years

[Adam Strange]

first u shit on Christians even though u claim to be one

And now u fail to see ur own shit. The biggest stinkiest piece of Turd at that

u are literally proving ur delusion Adam.

Im just wondering who ur gonna bitch and moan about in the next 4 years

Guys from Redford and Ferndale, probably.

[Subteigh]

Because Trump literally says "PEACEFUL" in his speech but its being twisted into violence lol...

"Only he who has experienced in his own inner life what it means to be German and yet to be denied the right of belonging to his fatherland can appreciate the profound nostalgia which that enforced exile causes. It is a perpetual heartache, and there is no place for joy and contentment until the doors of paternal home are thrown open and all those through whose veins kindred blood is flowing will find peace and rest in their common REICH."

[Subteigh]

Trump is ‘fuming mad’ after unsuccessful insurrection — aide says he has ‘lost it’: reports

Vanity Fair: “They’re Being Told to Stay Away From Trump”: After a Day of Violence and 25th Amendment Chatter, Trump’s Allies Are Jumping Ship

The Hill: Sasse says Trump was 'delighted' and 'excited' by reports of Capitol riot

New York Magazine: Senior Trump Official: We Were Wrong, He’s a ‘Fascist’

CNN: As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election

Washington Post: Six hours of paralysis: Inside Trump’s failure to act after a mob stormed the Capitol

CNN: Pence and Trump finally speak after post-riot estrangement

The Independent: Mitch McConnell believes Trump committed impeachable offences, report says

[Subteigh]

WASHINGTON — After more than four years of unflinching loyalty, Vice President Mike Pence is increasingly troubled about the way his relationship with President Donald Trump is coming to an end amid the most tumultuous episode of their administration, according to multiple people familiar with Pence’s thinking.

There is also a deepening and widespread anger among Pence’s aides and allies at how Trump seemingly discarded his most devoted soldier over his refusal to circumvent an important constitutional duty, per these people. The president’s decision not to reach out to Pence and his family while they were sheltered inside a Capitol bunker as pro-Trump rioters breached the building has particularly rankled Pence and others in his orbit.

The vice president himself is “very upset” that Trump didn’t do more to dissuade the mob, some of whom chanted for Pence’s execution. “Lives were at stake,” a person close to Pence said.

The White House, after days of notable silence on the issue, issued a generic statement Saturday condemning “all calls to violence” against anyone in the Trump administration. The president still has not acknowledged that Pence’s security — or that of any officials in the Capitol on Wednesday — was at risk.

NBC News: After break with Trump, Pence charts a new path forward

[Nobody]

[Adam Strange]

Trump is ‘fuming mad’ after unsuccessful insurrection — aide says he has ‘lost it’: reports

Vanity Fair: “They’re Being Told to Stay Away From Trump”: After a Day of Violence and 25th Amendment Chatter, Trump’s Allies Are Jumping Ship

The Hill: Sasse says Trump was 'delighted' and 'excited' by reports of Capitol riot

New York Magazine: Senior Trump Official: We Were Wrong, He’s a ‘Fascist’

CNN: As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election

Washington Post: Six hours of paralysis: Inside Trump’s failure to act after a mob stormed the Capitol

CNN: Pence and Trump finally speak after post-riot estrangement

The Independent: Mitch McConnell believes Trump committed impeachable offences, report says

"This adviser, who spoke to Trump on Wednesday amid the siege, said Trump watched the events on television intently. CNN reported that he was so excited by the action, it “freaked out” some staffers around him. The adviser told me that Trump expressed disgust on aesthetic grounds over how “low class” his supporters looked. “He doesn’t like low-class things,” the adviser said, explaining that Trump had a similar reaction over the summer to a video of Brad Parscale, his former campaign manager, shirtless and drinking a beer in his driveway during a mental-health emergency in which police tackled him and seized his weapons. “He kept mentioning, ‘Oh, did you see him in his beer shirt?’ He was annoyed. To him, it’s just low class, in other words.”

Classic.

[xerxe]

Having milked Trump for all that he's worth (tax cuts, judges, etc.), finally dumping Trump would complete Mitch McConnell's victory. He gets most of what he wanted (minus the senate) and the Republican party would belong to him again.

[Adam Strange]

Having milked Trump for all that he's worth (tax cuts, judges, etc.), finally dumping Trump would complete Mitch McConnell's victory. He gets most of what he wanted (minus the senate) and the Republican party would belong to him again.

Understanding Mitch McConnell: https://imgur.com/gallery/j5vdjgI

[inumbra]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/polit...eps/index.html

Ivanka Trump was among those who pushed her father to make the Twitter video that ultimately got him banned in the wake of the riot, according to a White House official.

In it he told rioters to "go home," but in an off-script moment added, "We love you."

It was again Ivanka Trump key among the aides who pushed the President to issue a subsequent video in the wake of his impeachment, again denouncing any future violence or plots to wreak havoc across the country. There were no words of "love" this time.

The latest move was motivated by fear of potential legal exposure by the President, a source familiar with the taping told CNN.

And according to sources who have worked and socialized with Ivanka Trump and Kushner, their motivation was likely their fear over the state of their beloved moneymaker -- the Trump brand.

Why did Trump denounce the violence (as though this weren't already dreadfully obvious)? Bc others insisted on it in a collective effort to save their asses, and bc he was trying to save his own ass. In case not already dreadfully obvious, he didn't really mean it. He knowingly egged his "low class" supporters on to attack the capitol. Whether he truly believed this would help him overturn the election results I don't know, but to overturn them is certainly something he wanted.

The answers aren't in the specific words he said. They are in the , in how amped up he got people and what he knew they would do with that energy once they reached the capitol. His words are meant to both incite them to this while not being clear enough to be read that way from all perspectives.

If Trump ever meant to bring about a peaceful transition of power he wouldn't have been on his soapbox about election fraud for months and he would have said plain and clear that Biden won.

[xerxe]

Understanding Mitch McConnell: https://imgur.com/gallery/j5vdjgI

I'm not terribly shocked that he's a congenital narcissist.

But in the antechambers of these archives there's this huge exhibit area, a shrine to McConnell and to Chao. And it has all of these exhibits about his life in politics and his career. And virtually all of the exhibits — all the things he chooses to present to the people who come there — are about his races. The high school races. His race in Louisville. His Senate race. His reelection. It's just one race after another. And that's all it is. There's almost nothing in those rooms about what he's actually accomplished in all of those decades in office.