Bob in Mich
-
Posts
1,748 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bob in Mich
-
-
6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
Who is this guy?
I watched the whole thing waiting to hear him explain why it was a dissident coup or whatever and he never did. He rambled on for 11 minutes about how it's not even up for discussion. Everybody says it is. If you don't think so its cuz you just watch movies and are uninformed.
Why, this is Beau of course. Beau has a YouTube channel and comments on current news events. Of course I don’t agree sometimes but he has pretty good content. I think his background is military or military intelligence
His point was that unquestionably it was a coup. The classification within coups seems debatable.
To those less educated in coups, it may not appear to be a coup because it did not look like coups that one has seen in movies. That is because tanks and guns, like in the movie military coups, are unnecessary to retain power in this type of coup
-
5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Your limitation is that you don’t consider the perspective of others as a relevant factor in how they view this issue, Bob. I shared factual information from the former Attorney General of the United States, one you suggested folks listen to as a reliable source just a post earlier.
You do not see any of that as being relevant as to how people view the events of 1/6, Bob, and that’s a blind spot for you. On the other hand, I do. I also understand your perspective and acknowledge your feelings about Trump, and understand you’ve completely dismissed as standard operating procedure the events to remove him from office under false pretense.
Now, if the Jan 6 issue was a one and done, out of the blue event undertaken by Trump, absent rather political actions of the Dems for the prior 4 years, I’d probably be agreeing with you. Moral outrage, holy crap how can this happen, blah blah blah. In this case, it’s a suckers game.
Georgia? Politics. It’s a dirty business. You know this. I know this. Why are we arguing about something we both know to be true? To be honest, it’s one reason people are largely disinterested in the story.
In the end, Bob, I’m not justifying anything at all, it’s simply that my rational, reasoned analysis leads me to conclude that this is the way the game is played. Again, wish it wasn’t, but it is.
I will say, also, that in spite of your attempt at mockery, I get a lot of compliments when I wear orange. Something about my personal color wheel, hybrid skin tone and that autumn somehow just works on me. Other colors on my wheel are blue, red, sea foam green, anything in the purple family, magenta and steel granite metallic if that’s still a thing.
Lenny, seriously? False pretense? He committed the acts that he was accused of at the impeachments and an unbiased jury would have had to convict him in both impeachment trials.
And don’t claim Bill Barr as anything special. He was a complete Trump toadie his whole term but when things began to turn illegal he wisely bailed out. Barr is no one I trust. Having him under oath for these hearings made him significantly more trustworthy though
Also, you seem to be all over the place when talking ‘political dirty tricks’. On one hand the pee tape talk (arguably a dirty trick) crippled Trump and that was unacceptably unfair in your eyes. On the other hand, if Trump can finagle 12,000 votes out of thin air, well that is just the game and how it is played. I would hope for more ethics all around here too but you are inconsistent here.
There are political dirty tricks and there are acts way beyond a trick to the point it becomes a crime. Trump’s attempts to retain the office started out in the legal arena but when successive attempts failed he took things into the criminal realm, imo. To claim he was setting things up for the next election cycle has to be called ludicrous.
Sorry Len but your blind spots have eclipsed mine
-
22 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:
Why weren't the paramilitary groups armed? If they really planned to overturn the election results, wouldn't it have made sense for them to bring guns?
Weapons are not needed in some coups. Research auto coup
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6zjigTxfQ4
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:
We disagree a bit here. I watched the results that night and there was clearly something amiss. Trump was ahead in a few key states and then the vote tally didn’t move for hours. We finally went to bed. I told the family…watch, and see if it doesn’t switch by morning…and sure enough it did. Now, that doesn’t prove anything but it sure as heck looked like this precincts were waiting to see how many they votes they needed to sway the results. Biden supporters can tout some 80 million votes but we all know it comes down to only a few thousand in some cherry picked precincts. Stolen, rigged, or not….the election night optics are what fueled the fire! There’s no argument there.
Yes, there is argument there. What you are describing, the Red Mirage, was discussed at length in today’s hearing. It is a phenomena that is well known - early returns will favor republicans and when the mail in ballots are counted, the Dems will gain ground. Trump was warned to expect this to happen. He deliberately ignored the warning and begun to claim this was suspicious. It was expected
-
12 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Let’s tell the whole story though, because it matters in context.
Barr has also suggested that what was done to Trump, and by extension to the American people who elected him fairly, was “a grave injustice”, “a political dirty trick”, and most recently, “seditious”. He further suggested the entire sad saga was designed to “hobble” the President and “drive him from office”.
All of the above is true. So, when supporters of the other side get all worked up because the “seditious” in Washington are trying, and failing, again to tie Trump to the horrible events of 1/6, it falls completely on deaf ears. Based on the ratings and lack of national interest in this story, it seems it falls in other deaf ears as well.
Put another way, two things can be true, Bob. It was entirely possible for DJT to appear at a rally for partisan political purposes, on the day he chose (my belief is he chose Wednesday, 1/6 specifically to steal the thunder away from Biden, crank up the next campaign for the next political cycle, and prepare for the next fight). It’s is also true that pre-planned and/or spontaneous chaos could occur within a few miles of the rally down the road, and that Trump and his inner circle had nothing to do with it.
As far as I can tell, liberals were ok with the death by paper cut approach to their version of changing the outcome of the prior election, but really uncomfortable with the “Let’s rip the band aid off” approach Trump employed.Oh pulease! I find sometimes folks can’t admit the truth because they are too far dug in for far too long. I believe your desire to maintain your position has cost you your reasoning skills. Like I have told you before, you are a nicer guy than most here but you still wear the orange robe of the cult.
Trump tried to stay in power when he knew he had lost. He was trying to disenfranchise millions of Biden voters. Do you recall that conversation with Raffensperger of Georgia? How in the hell could any American justify that attempt ? That is at the core of our country.
There is no equivalency to legal impeachment proceedings. Had Trump been convicted, his running mate, Pence would take over. And quit with the unjust scrutiny angle. Trump has brought scrutiny on himself
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Beach said:
yes, i wanted those contested states to be looked into and i say those election officials didnt want to look into it. the news really didnt want the election questioned, you couldnt even say those words on twitter, facebook or youtube. its crazy that you cant even question something without being silenced. i dont claim the election was stolen i only question it.
There were recounts done in at least 3 of the contested states with Georgia doing more than one recount. In all cases where the votes were recounted, Biden’s win was confirmed.
Do you realize why so many doubt the election results? The only reason is because they believe Trump’s accusations or those of his toadies. There has never been any substantial evidence shown, only Trump’s lie. There is no real doubt about any state results aside from the doubt Trump has planted.
Today’s hearing had extensive footage of Bill Barr testimony. Watch it to see that he too told Trump there was no widespread fraud that would alter the results. Still Trump continued with this lie
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Beach said:
i def didnt say the election was stolen. i dont know. but there were plenty of discrepancies i thought needed more looking into. its weird to me that people can say one way or another that it was or wasnt fair, you are really just trusting a news source for that.
Yes, J6 was chosen for a reason but i really dont think it was to break in and stop the electors. it seems obvious they would just finish up later like they did. it was a very small portion of people who went in or did any violence, but for some reason we didnt get the "mostly peaceful" tag.
No, election results may be predicted by news networks, but the official, signed-off results come from state election officials. It is their duty to certify results. In all of the states that Trump has contested, the election officials have stated that Trump lost in their states. It is not an unknowable ‘who gonna believe?’ issue.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Beach said:
Trump didnt even organize the rally, Women for Trump did. We decided to go before we even knew Trump would be speaking there. We went to show support for Trump and have our voices heard that we were not satisfied that more investigation hadn't happened concerning many voting practices.
During the speeches it was mostly like a music festival, just fun an friendly. During the march it was like a mockery of BLM marches, chants were "who's streets? sesame streets!" When we arrived to the outside of the Capitol I expected to just hoot and holler, hear a speech, and go home.
I took a folding chair out of some plastic wrap and sat down. Within seconds tear gas landed near me. Someone picked it up and threw it back to the cop who shot it down. He and his fellow cops ran. The crowd surged up the outside steps and some started climbing the walls. I never knew that anyone even made it inside. I had lost my friends (phones werent working because of the amount of ppl there) and I paced all around the outside until we met back up and we left after being on the grounds for an hour or so.
When I left I felt good about what happened until I got back to the hotel and saw that people had entered the building. But, my intention of being there was not to disrupt the electors.
Beach, thanks for the personal anecdote. Protests can be gratifying. If I had believed that the election was about to be stolen I might have gone out to protest too.
The thing is, you need proof. Nearly every national election has its results determined by state election officials. This election many Trump supporters here want us to take the word of Trump over the sworn statements of those officials. If the shoe was on the other foot and today Biden was protesting his loss, would you take his word that he was robbed or would you demand evidence?
I think it obvious the Jan6 date was chosen to allow protesters to delay certification. I don’t know who first announced that date but it was not just coincidental imo
if you watched the first hearing you would have seen that the apparent plan had the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers starting the attack before Trump’s speech was even finished. These folks had the defined role to disrupt the proceedings and the masses that followed were largely just for cover, again, to my way of thinking. Beach, you needn’t have intended to disrupt but some protesters at the same event most certainly did
-
44 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
The reason's obvious. If you only just want to make a point, you want the rally to be as close as possible to the day that action is being taken (it makes for really bad optics for those under the big dome). The 24 hour news cycle moves fast. If you wait too long afterwards or precede it by too many days....the media circus will have already moved on. And likewise...if you really want to 'overturn an election', you do NOT do this on the day of the recognition of electors.
Deek, you have provided a possible explanation. I don’t believe it is the actual reason but thanks for the reply
in my view Trump engaged in a multi-pronged attempt to invalidate the election in key states to try to stay in office. In order, he used court cases, the calls to the state election officials, and the meetings with state legislators all in unsuccessful attempts to overturn the votes. Jan 6 was a late game effort to push the key state elector decision back to state legislatures
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:
Have you considered the fact that the committee, at least in part, could be over-dramatizing J6 event and be using the hearings largely as political theater?
Certainly some part of the hearings are done as political theater. I don’t believe though that the hearings have convinced me that Jan6 was an attempt to overturn the election. I have recognized that for a long time
Have you any rational explanation for holding the J6 rally on a Wednesday morning other than to disrupt the recognition of electors?
-
5 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:
Bob, where is anyone here saying that people who broke the law shouldn't be prosecuted?
Well, without naming names, almost all of the folks minimizing the seriousness of the J6 event or denying the intended goal of that event are essentially advocating that we ignore the central players’ guilt in orchestrating the event. They don’t want an investigation in my opinion because they don’t want further accountability
-
1
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
He publicly threatened Supreme Court justices….didn’t they cover that in Michigan?
I am no lawyer but if what Schumer did is worthy of charging, then charge him. From what I know, those don’t seem like equivalent actions but if so, charge him
See, that should be a simple decision. Those proven guilty should be punished. No asking what tribe he is in or what that would mean politically.
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
It was a busy week. Actual Trump calendar for the week in question:
Monday, 1/4/21
9am - 7pm Tour of Moscow with V
Tuesday, 1/5/21
9am - 1pm Punch puppies at Pet Smart
1pm - 3pm Tweet
3pm - 7pm Coveffee with Melanie
Wednesday, 1/6/21
OPEN
Thursday, 1/7/21
9am - 9pm Discuss Kraken Unleashing w/ Rudy
Friday, 1/8/21
Winter Break BeginsAh-ha! Smoking gun!!! Lol
-
12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
All very well said. So, Schumer is guilty as well then? No?
Well, if Schumer is guilty, go ahead and indict him. If there is proof of a crime, any person should be charged. What proof of what crime are you referencing?
-
14 hours ago, Doc said:
Please, please, please try and indict Trump. I dare you.
You dare who? Go ahead and tell us the rest of your threat.
I have not followed this thread closely so perhaps this has been asked already but, why was the Stop the steal rally scheduled on a Wednesday morning? Normally these type of events are held over a weekend but this one coincided with the Congressional procedures to recognize the state electors to facilitate transition, right?
if taken alone the Jan 6 events could be, if one wanted to again give Trump the benefit of the doubt, just a rally that got out of hand. Of course if taken as part of the sequence of events that happened after Trump learned he lost the 2020 election, clearly this was yet another try at retaining power.
Trump will never be convicted of anything in this political environment, imo. If proven to be involved with planning of the break in and interruption of the transition though, I think he should be indicted as that would be illegal. If not proven to be involved, he shouldn’t be indicted. Of course ‘proven’ is subjective and many who wear their orange robes are unable to fathom the leaders guilt in anything, so.....
To advocate that he not be indicted when guilty would be to place him above the law.
-
24 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:
news flash, democracy wasn’t in danger. There was no coup. A bunch of idiots broke and entered into a federal building, spurred on by an egomaniac unable to grasp his election defeat, on one of they few days they actually do something there. They were then dispersed and it was business as usual.
Ever see this guy’s YouTube videos? He has some informative ones out there. Check out his take on why so many wonder whether or not to call the January 6th ‘event’ a coup. (One needn’t watch it all to get his take but the end of the video is worth watching too)
-
1
-
-
If we give Josh time in the pocket and keep him upright, we have an excellent chance of winning that game.
So, my biggest concern is the ability of the offensive line to hold up and weather an injury or two.
-
2
-
3
-
-
10 hours ago, B-Man said:
I would enlist.
I am sure that I could still be helpful in a medical capacity.
Organ donor?
-
2
-
-
What about the long snapper? Could he be the holder?
-
1
-
1
-
3
-
-
Barkley is doubtful imo because he will likely be QB3 and won’t be activated on game day
-
1
-
2
-
-
Playoff hockey is much more physical than regular season games. If the young Sabres somehow manage a playoff spot in the near future, where will the toughness come from? Any guys in the pipeline for those roles?
-
At the risk of re-igniting the anti Jack torches, I found this breakdown of the Trade interesting
Here is “The Hockey Guy’s” analysis of the Eichel impact on Vegas. Hasn’t been too good. The only issue I have with his take is he should mention, imo, that sometimes these things can look different over time. So far though, Jack clearly has not paid off
-
That was a good win. Most of the game it felt like the bounces and the momentum were not going our way. It was good to see them be able to turn that around.
When watching the Sabres games, just for fun at the halfway mark into the first period, I will make my prediction for the final score. For quite a while, those predictions were pretty good. If we weren’t going that night, it was obvious right out of the gate.
Later this season I was pleasantly surprised several times that they were able to overcome slow starts and turn the game their way. This is a very good sign, imo.
-
1
-
-
He don’t need no stinkin nickname! We should just kick back and let James Cook!
The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
This guy spoke after the 2nd impeachment acquittal. Check out the first few minutes. After a while he gets into the political weeds of impeachment but the beginning was worthy of a listen.
He may help refresh your memory of Jan6-2021
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxRMoqNnfvw