Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Xzi]

You just moved the goalpost

And here I thought the goal was always to have a tax policy which makes sense and provides the greatest possible benefit to the nation. Silly me.

It all kinda ties back to the same self-martyrdom strategy Trump is using now with his indictments. "I'm being indicted for YOU!" "I'm cutting billionaires' taxes for YOU!" Can't believe there's a single person alive today dumb enough to fall for that.

 

[Foxi4]

And here I thought the goal was always to have a tax policy which makes sense and provides the greatest possible benefit to the nation. Silly me.

It all kinda ties back to the same self-martyrdom strategy Trump is using now with his indictments. "I'm being indicted for YOU!" "I'm cutting billionaires' taxes for YOU!" Can't believe there's a single person alive today dumb enough to fall for that.

You don’t get to switch the point you’re arguing mid-stream and not get called out on it. A claim was made that the cuts were made specifically to benefit the wealthy. That is not true - not according to me, but according to the IRS and the Treasury Department. You can turn your nose at that if you want, I’m still going to tut-tut at you when I see you try such diversionary tactics. You don’t want to admit an error, so you’re changing the subject. I don’t play like that. Concede before you change subjects or drop the point entirely, either option is better than being caught red-handed like this.

 

[MicroNut99]

You don’t get to switch the point you’re arguing mid-stream and not get called out on it. A claim was made that the cuts were made specifically to benefit the wealthy. That is not true. You can turn your nose at that if you want, I’m still going to tut-tut at you when I see you try such diversionary tactics. You don’t want to admit an error, so you’re changing the subject. I don’t play like that. Concede before you change subjects or drop the point entirely, either option is better than being caught red-handed like this.

So Mr. Global Moderator,

What is the OP subject?
Trump has been indicted for being a traitor to the United States.
Let talk about that.
OR shall we digress.

 

[Foxi4]

So Mr. Global Moderator,

What is the OP subject?
Trump has been indicted for being a traitor to the United States.
Let talk about that.
OR shall we digress.
View attachment 389504

I agree, since we’re not going to get a productive discussion about tax cuts in an unrelated thread. I said as much repeatedly now.

 

[MicroNut99]

I agree, since we’re not going to get a productive discussion about tax cuts in an unrelated thread. I said as much repeatedly now.

So please do what I have been told repeatedly by other GBATemp Moderators and just ignore it.
We will have plenty of time to tear each other apart in 2025.

 

[Xzi]

You don’t get to switch the point you’re arguing mid-stream and not get called out on it. A claim was made that the cuts were made specifically to benefit the wealthy. That is not true - not according to me, but according to the IRS and the Treasury Department. You can turn your nose at that if you want, I’m still going to tut-tut at you when I see you try such diversionary tactics. You don’t want to admit an error, so you’re changing the subject. I don’t play like that. Concede before you change subjects or drop the point entirely, either option is better than being caught red-handed like this.

I wasn't the one who claimed that the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy, but my contention is that any benefit to everyone else is temporary and comes with strings attached. Republicans are incapable of passing legislation with the sole purpose of benefiting the working class, there's always fine print included to screw them over.

 

[Foxi4]

So please do what I have been told repeatedly by other GBATemp Moderators and just ignore it.
We will have plenty of time to tear each other apart in 2025.

I’m afraid that I can’t advocate for that. It’s pretty exhausting, not to mention not permitted in this establishment.

I wasn't the one who claimed that the tax cuts only benefit the wealthy, but my contention is that any benefit to everyone else is temporary and comes with strings attached.

I didn’t say you did. That being said, I can shake on that since the provisions were originally slated to gradually expire over time, and I’ve expressed my desire to see the cuts extended, ideally indefinitely. In that regard. We’re fellow travellers. I think that a shaking hands moment is as close as we’re going to get to ending the exchange amicably. I have no love for the Republican party, so you won’t see me jumping in to protect them from any speeding bullets. If your cause is making sure someone’s giving less money to the federal government then I’m right there with ya, you had me at “less money”, you don’t need to finish.

 

[Taleweaver]

Ugh...It's contributing in off-topic'ness (@MicroNut99 : the topic is actually about the subversion of the Georgian election process), but I just can't get this slide...

My recollection of the timeline is perfectly fine, what you’re saying is patently untrue. Donald Trump urged the crowd to protest peacefully during his speech, long before anyone marched towards the Capitol.

If we're going to count the timeline, we might as well point out a few contradictions prior to that speech. I pretty know them by heart by now:
"Be there, going to be wild"
"Proud boys: stand back and standby"
And so on (don't get me started on Giuliani's speech with his "trial by combat" just prior to Trump's one).

It was already known by authorities that Trump's tweets were seen as calls to arms (quick google link), and that Trump's administration explicitly denied extra security measures.

The phrase is true, but kind of laughable as a defence. It's pretty much literally summoning a bunch of thugs, saying "go out there" and expecting them to behave because you say so.

”I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
-Donald Trump, January 6th speech, 12:16 p.m

The Capitol building barricades haven’t been breached until 12:57 p.m, from the western side, and the first rioter entered the building 2:12 p.m., nearly 2 hours after Trump asked the protesters to be peaceful. He repeated the request on Twitter at 2:38 p.m, a little over 20 minutes after the building was breached:

”Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 2:38 p.m
He repeated his call for peaceful protest a third time at 3:13 p.m, once again via Twitter:
”I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 3:13 p.m
Since the riot was still raging on, he opted to publish an unscripted video in which he urged the protesters to disperse:
”I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us—from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
- Donald Trump, on video, via Twitter, 4:17 p.m
…and one final time immediately after the D.C curfew went into effect:
”These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”
- Donald Trump, via Twitter, 6:01 p.m

(note: formatting errors by me. sorry about that)

I'm not even sure if you're criticizing @RedColoredStars here or agreeing with him. If that first tweet went out about a couple minutes after the breach: sure. Twenty? EEeehhhhmmm...maybe? Keep in mind that in this same time, he was being ushered to the white house by his driver (rather than the capitol, where he wanted to go to). It are also his own fans engaging in illegal acts (even Trump never denied this). And it's not like he has trouble sending out quick tweets quickly.

But after that? THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES before his next tweet? That's a fucking eternity when the country you're supposed to lead is under attack. And as unscripted as it is, sending out the video OVER AN HOUR LATER AFTER THAT is...fuck, why am I the one talking? You brought it up, so I'm asking you, @Foxi4 : what do you think the reason for all that delay is?

Conservatives have a hard time getting it through their skull, but their beloved leader just watched the whole thing on television and did nothing. Guards? Homeland security? Nope. Nothing. Throwing his meal against the wall in frustration, if you want to believe someone with an independent lawyer rather than a Trump-provided one.
I quoted Peril when I blogged about that book about the most chilling part: McConnell called him from within the capitol to make a national statement, and Trump just shrugged and said "I guess they care more about the election result than you did".

He sent this tweet against the recommendation of White House staff who believed it would imply complicity with the events, but Trump sent it anyway, I can only speculate that having the crowd leave was more important to him than appearances. It was later deleted once the account was reinstated.

Okay, I'm going to seriously need some quotes on it, because I'm calling bullshit here.
From the general (I forgot his name) and Ivanka who happened to be with him when he was watching television, all I could gather was that they wanted him to do MORE than just sending a tweet and being otherwise unphased. Because let's be clear: it's not like it was likely the majority were going to pause their rioting to check their phones, let alone retreat when the one whipping them into a frenzy wanted them to be civil.

There is testimony that he was reluctant to relay any instructions to the crowd once the riot started, which is perfectly understandable given what he’s being accused of now. More likely than not, he wanted to avoid the appearance of being in charge of the riot.

I...guess that's an opinion? It's not Trump ever ushered to my knowledge, and I've seen quite a lot of bullshit excuses ("it's actually antifa", "they're actually not that violent", "security actually invited them in").

But even if we run with him "not wanting to have the appearance of being in charge of the riot"...how the hell is slowly and not responding at all better? I'm not sure to what degree they're bringing in evidence, but lack of action is very likely being among those.
And even if the "even if" is applied: he is still the president at that time. His job IS to defend the capitol, his employees, his vice president, offices, the democracy...the whole shebang. What kind of world is this where the president isn't allowed to respond to an emergency because he might be seen as being in charge of it?
"oh...someone just flew into the world trade center. Hmm...better let it slide or they think I did"
Like...dude...seriously? Is this a "devil's advocate" reasoning, or do you actually believe anything of what you wrote there?

I don’t know why you’d argue this point at all, the timeline is public. Trump told the crowd to be peaceful long before any violence broke out, and continued telling them to be peaceful throughout the event. We can have a different interpretation of why he said what he said, but there can be no disagreement about the timeline - it’s been carefully recorded. There is no doubt whatsoever that he was telling the gathered crowd to be peaceful from the very beginning, he said as much in his speech, before the riot even started.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

Meh...for what it's worth: I don't think Trump actually wanted the riot to break out. But because he couldn't pressure his lap dog (Pence) to engage in his last scheme, I don't think he cared one way or another. from what I can tell (but that's just my speculation) he just sent out his tweets because that earlier mentioned general and Ivanka were begging him to do something and he wanted them to shut up. That would also explain why Trump brought his video message with all the urgency and importance of a tax collector reading a phone book.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

 

[Foxi4]

Ugh...It's contributing in off-topic'ness (@MicroNut99 : the topic is actually about the subversion of the Georgian election process), but I just can't get this slide...


If we're going to count the timeline, we might as well point out a few contradictions prior to that speech. I pretty know them by heart by now:
"Be there, going to be wild"
"Proud boys: stand back and standby"
And so on (don't get me started on Giuliani's speech with his "trial by combat" just prior to Trump's one).

It was already known by authorities that Trump's tweets were seen as calls to arms (quick google link), and that Trump's administration explicitly denied extra security measures.

The phrase is true, but kind of laughable as a defence. It's pretty much literally summoning a bunch of thugs, saying "go out there" and expecting them to behave because you say so.


(note: formatting errors by me. sorry about that)

I'm not even sure if you're criticizing @RedColoredStars here or agreeing with him. If that first tweet went out about a couple minutes after the breach: sure. Twenty? EEeehhhhmmm...maybe? Keep in mind that in this same time, he was being ushered to the white house by his driver (rather than the capitol, where he wanted to go to). It are also his own fans engaging in illegal acts (even Trump never denied this). And it's not like he has trouble sending out quick tweets quickly.

But after that? THIRTY-FIVE MINUTES before his next tweet? That's a fucking eternity when the country you're supposed to lead is under attack. And as unscripted as it is, sending out the video OVER AN HOUR LATER AFTER THAT is...fuck, why am I the one talking? You brought it up, so I'm asking you, @Foxi4 : what do you think the reason for all that delay is?

Conservatives have a hard time getting it through their skull, but their beloved leader just watched the whole thing on television and did nothing. Guards? Homeland security? Nope. Nothing. Throwing his meal against the wall in frustration, if you want to believe someone with an independent lawyer rather than a Trump-provided one.
I quoted Peril when I blogged about that book about the most chilling part: McConnell called him from within the capitol to make a national statement, and Trump just shrugged and said "I guess they care more about the election result than you did".


Okay, I'm going to seriously need some quotes on it, because I'm calling bullshit here.
From the general (I forgot his name) and Ivanka who happened to be with him when he was watching television, all I could gather was that they wanted him to do MORE than just sending a tweet and being otherwise unphased. Because let's be clear: it's not like it was likely the majority were going to pause their rioting to check their phones, let alone retreat when the one whipping them into a frenzy wanted them to be civil.



I...guess that's an opinion? It's not Trump ever ushered to my knowledge, and I've seen quite a lot of bullshit excuses ("it's actually antifa", "they're actually not that violent", "security actually invited them in").

But even if we run with him "not wanting to have the appearance of being in charge of the riot"...how the hell is slowly and not responding at all better? I'm not sure to what degree they're bringing in evidence, but lack of action is very likely being among those.
And even if the "even if" is applied: he is still the president at that time. His job IS to defend the capitol, his employees, his vice president, offices, the democracy...the whole shebang. What kind of world is this where the president isn't allowed to respond to an emergency because he might be seen as being in charge of it?
"oh...someone just flew into the world trade center. Hmm...better let it slide or they think I did"
Like...dude...seriously? Is this a "devil's advocate" reasoning, or do you actually believe anything of what you wrote there?


Meh...for what it's worth: I don't think Trump actually wanted the riot to break out. But because he couldn't pressure his lap dog (Pence) to engage in his last scheme, I don't think he cared one way or another. from what I can tell (but that's just my speculation) he just sent out his tweets because that earlier mentioned general and Ivanka were begging him to do something and he wanted them to shut up. That would also explain why Trump brought his video message with all the urgency and importance of a tax collector reading a phone book.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

We have a different impression of what he said then, and that’s fine. I’m not going to go point by point here since, as you say, all of this is off-topic, but even the “stand by” quote you’ve chosen to prove his supposed intent is not something he wanted to say - he was pressured into saying the line by Chris Wallace who demanded that he “condemns white supremacists and militia groups”, which is a weird request during a presidential debate in and out of itself. I don’t go around asking people to condemn things and state truisms for me. What’s even funnier is that he did condemn them. Even Biden got fact checked on this, by CNN no less.

https://edition.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_0e65baed-5eab-45eb-b322-871b4016c49a

Do you remember how that debate went? I do.

1:04:23 WALLACE

Okay, you have repeatedly criticized the Vice President for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups? And to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities, as we saw in Kenosha, as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared specifically to do that?

1:04:46 TRUMP

Sure, I’m prepared to do it. I would say- I would say, almost everything I see is from the left-wing, not from the right wing-

1:05:55 WALLACE

So what do you, what do you say-

1:04:56 TRUMP

I'm willing to do anything I want to see peace.

1:04:57 WALLACE

Then do it, sir.

1:04:59 BIDEN

Say it, do it, say it.

1:05:00 TRUMP

You want to call them -- What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me --

1:05:04 WALLACE

White supremacists and, white supremacists and right-wing --

1:05:07 BIDEN

The Proud Boys.

1:05:07 TRUMP

Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what, I'll tell you what, somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left because this is not a right-wing problem. This is a left-wing problem.

What’s the tl;dr here, exactly? Chris Wallace asked him to tell militia groups to stand down, those exact words. Trump asked what groups he means, because that’s not every specific. Biden narrowed it down to Proud Boys. In response Trump said “hey, Proud Boys, stand back”. That’s how it actually went down, so for you to tell me that Trump was giving orders to a militia group on national television when in fact he used *the exact same phrasing* as the moderator suggested is either dishonest or misinformed. He wasn’t reluctant to do as he was asked either - his immediate reaction to the request was “Sure, who do you want me to condemn?”. He did *exactly* what he was asked to do, he was perfectly willing to condemn violent groups there and then, and yet somehow that’s supposed to be an argument against him? Did we watch the same debate? He was put on the spot with a weird question, so he used Wallace’s own words.

We *could* go point by point with all of this again, but I don’t think that’s productive - even *in that debate* he said that all he wants to see is peace, so I’m sorry, but I’m just not buying it. He’s been condemning political violence long before January 6th. I think you’re putting things in his mouth by purposefully misinterpreting what he said.

Things “being wild” does not imply any violent conduct - I’ve been to many wild parties, but none of them have overthrown a government in the process. To me, he was obviously talking about his speech, and he treats every speech as a rally. He wants his rallies to be “wild”, like a party. Nothing untoward here, unless you really want to go out of your way to misinterpret things. “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”, @Taleweaver.

I don’t see any significant “delays” in the J6 timeline, as I outlined above. In his speech, long before anything illegal had occurred, he urged protesters to be peaceful. As the situation progressed, he reacted to every major development with the same request to be peaceful in a timeframe that I find acceptable. He was tweeting long before a single protester stepped foot in the Capitol building (the riot’s been going over an hour before that happened), I even gave you a minute-by-minute breakdown, but if you don’t think that’s good enough then there’s nothing I can say to change your mind. I would *hope* that he was busy doing a dozen other things besides tweeting, so the, in my opinion, short delays are perfectly understandable. 20-30 minutes between tweets is not the end of the world while you’re trying to manage a crisis, which takes priority over typing on a cellphone. The man can’t teleport or beam his thoughts to members of staff or law enforcement - it takes time. I understand why you’d prefer to see him use that time for tweets, but realistically he was probably just busy. That’s the timeline, accurately recorded and cross-referenced down to the minute. There’s no point in having a debate about it, it is what it is.

EDIT: You also mentioned deployment of additional forces to defend the Capitol. There are some inconsistencies in the record regarding that - if this testimony is to be believed, Gen. Flynn and Lt. Gen. Piatt recommended *against* doing so, and later lied to Congress to protect their own hides.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/jan-6-generals-lied-ex-dc-guard-official-523777

There were also reports of Capitol Police rejecting offers of support from the Pentagon days before the event:

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-reject-federal-help-9c39a4ddef0ab60a48828a07e4d03380

…which are directly contradicted by reports that requests for support were repeatedly denied:

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/9555...ims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri

This is why the matter needs to be thoroughly investigated, because from where I’m sitting, it seems that nobody knew what to do or when.

 

[RetroGen]

While I understand the desire to present a charitable reading of a person's statements as a general principle, some appear to be willing to give up any notion of critical thinking when that person accords with their strong ideological biases. Trump is one of the most dishonest people to ever hold political office. To ignore the thousands of lies and half-truths he has told, yet naively cherry pick specific favorable interpretations of a few of his utterances as a defense strategy suggests an extreme case of motivated reasoning and confirmation/disconfirmation bias. It also strains credibility to the breaking point. To interpret Trump's words and actions with undue charity is to deny the reality that Trump is a compulsive liar and serial criminal. Practically everything Trump says and does ought to be viewed similarly to Russian disinformation, filled with dog whistles and other propaganda techniques, and intentionally constructed to facilitate plausible deniability. As such, it is imperative to consider the extremely low trustworthiness and manipulative nature of the source if we seek any truth of the matter.

Roughly, I envisage two types of Trump supporters: The first group actually believes what Trump says and thinks he a master businessman who "shoots from the hip", and is a genuine populist leader who will work to forward their interests (even though this is generally false, in fact). This first group is either unaware of or in denial of who Trump actually is or what he represents. The second group, however, recognizes that Trump is a malignant narcissist with a long history of illegal and ethical behavior, yet supports him regardless because Trumpism fits with their selfish, Machiavellian, interests; for many, it seems to be great blood sport to watch Trump corrupt institutions, traditions, the rule of law, and generally watch the world burn. The first group might get a bit of a pass due to their credulous ignorance, whilst the second group resonates with the same dark triad traits as Trump, many gleefully aping his deplorable modus operandi around the world. Neither group seems to be reachable via reasoned discourse.

 

[Foxi4]

While I understand the desire to present a charitable reading of a person's statements as a general principle, some appear to be willing to give up any notion of critical thinking when that person accords with their strong ideological biases. Trump is one of the most dishonest people to ever hold political office. To ignore the thousands of lies and half-truths he has told, yet naively cherry pick specific favorable interpretations of a few of his utterances as a defense strategy suggests an extreme case of motivated reasoning and confirmation/disconfirmation bias. It also strains credibility to the breaking point. To interpret Trump's words and actions with undue charity is to deny the reality that Trump is a compulsive liar and serial criminal. Practically everything Trump says and does ought to be viewed similarly to Russian disinformation, filled with dog whistles and other propaganda techniques, and intentionally constructed to facilitate plausible deniability. As such, it is imperative to consider the extremely low trustworthiness and manipulative nature of the source if we seek any truth of the matter.

Roughly, I envisage two types of Trump supporters: The first group actually believes what Trump says and thinks he a master businessman who "shoots from the hip", and is a genuine populist leader who will work to forward their interests (even though this is generally false, in fact). This first group is either unaware of or in denial of who Trump actually is or what he represents. The second group, however, recognizes that Trump is a malignant narcissist with a long history of illegal and ethical behavior, yet supports him regardless because Trumpism fits with their selfish, Machiavellian, interests; for many, it seems to be great blood sport to watch Trump corrupt institutions, traditions, the rule of law, and generally watch the world burn. The first group might get a bit of a pass due to their credulous ignorance, whilst the second group resonates with the same dark triad traits as Trump, many gleefully aping his deplorable modus operandi around the world. Neither group seems to be reachable via reasoned discourse.

I don’t think I’m being charitable at all and I have no particular “desires” to present anything in any particular light. I am only interested in what was actually said and when, I am not interested in weaving additional meaning into words when it isn’t there. These are not trials of Trump’s character, liking or disliking him should not cloud the judgement of facts, which is why I’ll be waiting patiently for the legal process to fully unfold. I have my own opinion based on the facts that are available, but I’m not shoving it down anyone’s throat - all of these statements are public and anyone can interpret them any way they like.

 

[RetroGen]

I don’t think I’m being charitable at all and I have no particular “desires” to present anything in any particular light. I am only interested in what was actually said and when, I am not interested in weaving additional meaning into words when it isn’t there. These are not trials of Trump’s character, liking or disliking him should not cloud the judgement of facts, which is why I’ll be waiting patiently for the legal process to fully unfold. I have my own opinion based on the facts that are available, but I’m not shoving it down anyone’s throat - all of these statements are public and anyone can interpret them any way they like.

Extremely, unjustly, charitable. To give Trump the benefit of the doubt would be foolish, given his history, as he has clearly established himself as a bad faith actor (a detailed list of transgressions would be longer than this thread). If getting to the truth is actually the goal, Trump's words and actions have to be judged through an understanding of his character and MO, based upon decades of evidence of similarly illicit, dishonest, pathological, behavior.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking, but rather a having an interest in seeing the truth behind his loathsome litany of lies and deceit. Further, when Trump speaks in dog whistles, it would be foolish to ignore how his statements are received by the target audience; e.g. when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by", they clearly heard him recognizing them and calling on them to stand by to serve Trump, not as a call to stop supporting him. Failing to read between the lines and beneath the surface can only result in a failure to see the truth lying underneath, especially with Machiavellian narcissists. But then perhaps some see Putin with similarly credulous eyes, being the defender of all that is holy and righteous... the modern Peter the Great.

 

[RedColoredStars]

I'm not even sure if you're criticizing @RedColoredStars here or agreeing with him.

He does that shit 24/7 to anyone who points out where he's failed. False narratives to fit his agenda. Leaves out specifics to paint different pictures. The guys a complete loud mouthed, trouble making, shit starter, egotistical basket case with a power trip, and has no business being a mod here or anywhere else. But as others have said, not a chance the boss is going to take action against his own guy.

 

[mrdude]

Extremely, unjustly, charitable. To give Trump the benefit of the doubt would be foolish, given his history, as he has clearly established himself as a bad faith actor (a detailed list of transgressions would be longer than this thread). If getting to the truth is actually the goal, Trump's words and actions have to be judged through an understanding of his character and MO, based upon decades of evidence of similarly illicit, dishonest, pathological, behavior.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking, but rather a having an interest in seeing the truth behind his loathsome litany of lies and deceit. Further, when Trump speaks in dog whistles, it would be foolish to ignore how his statements are received by the target audience; e.g. when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by", they clearly heard him recognizing them and calling on them to stand by to serve Trump, not as a call to stop supporting him. Failing to read between the lines and beneath the surface can only result in a failure to see the truth lying underneath, especially with Machiavellian narcissists. But then perhaps some see Putin with similarly credulous eyes, being the defender of all that is holy and righteous... the modern Peter the Great.

I'd love to see the left holding the Bidens and the rest of the criminals in his party to the same standards as you seem to hold President Trump to, but alas - we never see that, what we do see is a two tier justice system, and a two tier way of thinking.

The left is full of hate mongers, you'd rather destroy your own country than see a republican in the white house, and the truth is you hate Trump because a lot of Americans support him - so he's a threat to your world view. This is the reason you have become mentally unstable with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Personally as an outsider from a different country all I just see that the more you lot hate (dems and republicans) each other, the more your country gets destroyed on a whole bunch of fronts from energy, inflation, debt, crime, illegals, drugs etc, The rest of the world is just growing stronger. You are busy arguing about x,y,z - hating your neighbours with a different viewpoint, and eveyone else is just getting on with life.
If you keep going the way you lot are going you country will end up splitting up into it's own little bits and you'll be taking your orders from China, Russia and others from the other side of the world.

 

[Foxi4]

He does that shit 24/7 to anyone who points out where he's failed. False narratives to fit his agenda. Leaves out specifics to paint different pictures. The guys a complete loud mouthed, trouble making, shit starter, egotistical basket case with a power trip, and has no business being a mod here or anywhere else. But as others have said, not a chance the boss is going to take action against his own guy.

It’s a minute-by-minute timeline that proves without a shadow of a doubt that you’re wrong. I didn’t write it myself, it’s on Wikipedia - argue with them. He asked the crowd to be peaceful before the Capitol building was breached, and continued to do so many times afterwards.

Extremely, unjustly, charitable. To give Trump the benefit of the doubt would be foolish, given his history, as he has clearly established himself as a bad faith actor (a detailed list of transgressions would be longer than this thread). If getting to the truth is actually the goal, Trump's words and actions have to be judged through an understanding of his character and MO, based upon decades of evidence of similarly illicit, dishonest, pathological, behavior.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking, but rather a having an interest in seeing the truth behind his loathsome litany of lies and deceit. Further, when Trump speaks in dog whistles, it would be foolish to ignore how his statements are received by the target audience; e.g. when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by", they clearly heard him recognizing them and calling on them to stand by to serve Trump, not as a call to stop supporting him. Failing to read between the lines and beneath the surface can only result in a failure to see the truth lying underneath, especially with Machiavellian narcissists. But then perhaps some see Putin with similarly credulous eyes, being the defender of all that is holy and righteous... the modern Peter the Great.

If you care so much about the truth then establishing what the public record states should be high on your priority list. Either we care about what was actually said or we’re working in Imaginationland. I, for one, care what was said.

 

[MicroNut99]

Trump is a traitor and so is anyone who supports him.

 

[RetroGen]

I'd love to see the left holding the Bidens and the rest of the criminals in his party to the same standards as you seen to hold President Trump to, but alas - we never see that, what we do see is a two tier justice system, and a two tier way of thinking.

The left is full of hate mongers, you'd rather destroy your own country than see a republican in the white house, and the truth is you hate Trump because a lot of Americans support him - so he's a threat to your world view. This is the reason you have become mentally unstable with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Personally as an outsider from a different country all I just see that the more you lot hate (dems and republicans) each other, the more your country gets destroyed on a whole bunch of fronts from energy, inflation, debt, crime, illegals, drugs etc, The rest of the world is just growing stronger. You are busy arguing about x,y,z - hating your neighbours with a different viewpoint, and eveyone else is just getting on with life.
If you keep going the way you lot are going you country will end up splitting up into it's own little bits and you'll be taking your orders from China, Russia and others from the other side of the world.

I'm Canadian. I don't like the Democrats or the Republicans. Biden is merely the lesser of two evils, an establishment right-wing corporatist who offers a few crumbs to the political left. Curious to know more about this supposed two-tiered justice system. Trump has spent his entire life as the benefactor of just such a system, using his wealth and privilege to remain largely free from punishment for his litany of crimes. It is only now, after several grievous crimes against American democracy and national security, that Trump is finally seeing a tiny serving of the legal recourse that an average US citizen would face under the same circumstances. Almost anyone other than Trump would be in jail by now if they had committed the same crimes, facing decades of incarceration to contemplate their debt to society. Just ask anyone in the US military what would have happened to them if they had illegally kept classified documents or attempted to subvert an election. So, yes... two-tiered indeed.

 

[supermist]

I'd love to see the left holding the Bidens and the rest of the criminals in his party to the same standards as you seem to hold President Trump to, but alas - we never see that, what we do see is a two tier justice system, and a two tier way of thinking.

The left is full of hate mongers, you'd rather destroy your own country than see a republican in the white house, and the truth is you hate Trump because a lot of Americans support him - so he's a threat to your world view. This is the reason you have become mentally unstable with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Personally as an outsider from a different country all I just see that the more you lot hate (dems and republicans) each other, the more your country gets destroyed on a whole bunch of fronts from energy, inflation, debt, crime, illegals, drugs etc, The rest of the world is just growing stronger. You are busy arguing about x,y,z - hating your neighbours with a different viewpoint, and eveyone else is just getting on with life.
If you keep going the way you lot are going you country will end up splitting up into it's own little bits and you'll be taking your orders from China, Russia and others from the other side of the world.

More moronic hypothetical whataboutism

 

[RedColoredStars]

It’s a minute-by-minute timeline that proves without a shadow of a doubt that you’re wrong. I didn’t write it myself, it’s on Wikipedia - argue with them. He asked the crowd to be peaceful before the Capitol building was breached, and continued to do so many times afterwards.

You're intentionally leaving out VERY important key details of the entire event to paint your own portrait and you know it. Most of these have even already been pointed out to you. Enough people here see right through your little games and the way you play them.

"Political disinformation & propaganda ops infiltrating GBAtemp too"
https://gbatemp.net/threads/political-disinformation-propaganda-ops-infiltrating-gbatemp-too.593080/

Yeah, Foxi here is right under Costello's nose and nothing is done.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I don't believe that Trump did anything wrong and hope to see him cleared of the charges.