Pencemegeddon

[TheDeamon]

If one of the parties does something to destabilize America, and we are subsequently invaded, everyone loses, including the parties.

If Russia does something to destabilize America, and we are subsequently invaded, Russian wins.

Odds of any US State getting invaded during such a scenario? Near zero.

Odds of some of our territories and possessions being invaded(like Guam)? Probably reasonably decent.

Although I think the Russian/Chinese game plan would be to avoid giving the Americans anything to rally to in such a scenario and would instead give the United States a wide berth(With Guam possibly excepted in China's case). They'd instead use that time as their golden opportunity to go full ham on enlarging their sphere of direct control while America is distracted by internal matters.

[Wayward Son]

I'm speaking about the general principle here, why outside foreign interference with elections is worse than domestic, not about any particular interference.

[kidv]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW718KRYDtU&feature=emb_logo

This may be tracking WmLambert's jump-in on "election results," but I wonder if this video has a "Yanny v. Laurel" element to it. 

Does everyone who listens to this hear the crowd chant, "Hang Mike Pence," or does anyone honestly hear something different?  I'd certainly feel better if they were chanting Get Mike Pence or Find Mike Pence, but nothing seems to line up sonically.

So the noose and the chant and the zipties seem sort of . . . troubling.  Along with the dead people, or course. That does adds a little gravity to the situation.   That and the crowd "started storming" the capitol about 10 minutes after Trump tweeted that Mike Pence didn't have the courage to reject the electoral vote. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hang-mike-pence-chant-capitol-riot/


Just to toss in, I find it disturbing for allocation of responsibility (or less plausible deniability) that groups had a permitted event at the ellipse, but then Donald Trump directed the crowd to march to Capitol (a non-permitted location), which obviously had deleterious results. 

[TheDeamon]

Just to toss in, I find it disturbing for allocation of responsibility (or less plausible deniability) that groups had a permitted event at the ellipse, but then Donald Trump directed the crowd to march to Capitol (a non-permitted location), which obviously had deleterious results.

"Marching to/on the Capitol" is something that has probably happened dozens of times in the history of the country. In fact, I'd put good odds that some of the Democrats sitting in congress right now have done exactly that using that same language at times in the past.

What was new was that some people obviously took it to actually mean "assault the capitol."

[TheDeamon]

One such example:

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/82818

San Francisco – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on the 55th anniversary of the March on Washington, led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on August 28, 1963:
“Fifty-five years ago, at the historic March on Washington, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared his dream with the world, igniting the energy and activism of a generation to meet the ‘fierce urgency of now.’  Americans across the country heard his clarion call to action, and over decades of tireless advocacy achieved extraordinary progress to move our nation forward.  But our journey toward justice is far from complete, and much of Dr. King’s vision and dream remain to be achieved.

[Aris Katsaris]

What was new was that some people obviously took it to actually mean "assault the capitol."

What was also new was for a sitting president to claim that the vice president could throw out any election votes, to claim that the senate had the right to overturn the result of the election, and to also claim that not only the election was stolen but that everyone who said otherwise supposedly KNEW they were lying, and either were the enemy or cowards.

In Trump's repeated rhetoric there's no place for anyone to even honestly think that Trump lost, so anyone who ever says otherwise, why they are just an evil enemy. Anyone who disagreed that the Senate could overthrow the electoral votes, was also evil or a coward.

That's what was new. The invasion and desecration of the Capitol was the inevitable consequence of this bunch of malicious lies spoken by a sitting president.

[Aris Katsaris]

And, btw, all the Trumpist weasels here, while whining words about they disapprove of the riot, THEY STILL CAN'T *censored*ING SAY THE SIMPLE WORDS "Trump lied."

We pinpoint to you people specific direct lies of Donald Trump, and you TheDeamon, and you cherry, and you Fenring, and you everyone else who voted for the piece of excrement, still can't say "Trump lied".

And so since he can't ever possibly lie, what's the natural consequence of Donald Trump saying that the election was been proven to have been stolen conclusively beyond all shadow of the doubt, and that supposedly "everyone knows it"?

You're morally complicit by your unwillingness to stand against his lies.

But keep on saying cherry how "this is how the game is played". Keep pretending Fenring that accusations about Russia are as unsubstantitated as Sidney Powell accusing Venezuela, Iran, China, whatever. Keep pretending that the *rightful* Mueller investigation, which investigated an actual crime is a supposed sin that balances out against anything Trump has done. Keep pretending that Trump shouldn't have been impeached for his shameful dealings in Ukraine.

And above all keep pretending that Trump isn't a pathological liar that has spewed lie after lie after lie after lie in an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election and make himself dictator.

SAY IT: "Trump lied." Or instead *censored* off already, fascism-enabling cowardly weasels.

[kidv]

Everyone's aware that marches and protests are common.

It's standard that a demonstration moving off of its permitted location becomes an unlawful gathering when its members breach the peace.

It's standard that when marchers defy their permit and breach the peace they expect to be arrested or cited for their violation, be it trespassing or whatever.

It's standard and expected that when a demonstration or march gets overengaged and breaches the peace or becomes a riot, the people on the podium who led the demonstrators or egged on them on by whatever means will customarily be charged with inciting a riot.  That's accepted as a risk for all circumstances when a crowd you're in charge of goes off the rails, and I expect all organizers of a mass event are aware of that risk and responsibility.

[This particular riot carries the unfortunate special circumstance of meeting the paper definition of insurrection or sedition in its effect, which is a complicating factor.]

Hewing to the event itself and the the outcome itself, by standard practice the leader of a mass demonstration who tells the masses to leave their permitted area and go  . . . wherever, exposes themselves to criminal liability if that unlawful assembly which they directed gets more worked up than one would hope.  That's the problem.  The normal pattern and practice for this situation is for the person who says, "Let's march to city hall!" to be charged with incitement.  If the end result is trespassing, nobody generally cares.  But when a cop gets killed, and there's actually a riot, the law doesn't sweep that under the rug.

So what do we do when the person who says "Let's march," is the president?  That's the fair question.  Would anyone else get charged with a crime?  I'd posit that yes, the action is fairly common, and yes, the leader who says, "Let's march" is commonly charged with a crime when the masses create a big enough disturbance.

So does the president have immunity for illegal acts?   Does the president get to incite a riot?  This is the problem.

[In our particular circumstance we have a bigger problem when the co-equal heads of government learn there were people pointed in their direction with zip manacles chanting Hang Mike Pence. This is indeed a conundrum.]

[Wayward Son]

The Trumpist reaction, in four tweets.

[DonaldD]

A robocall sent out by the "Rule of Law Defense Fund", and arm of the "Republican Attorneys General Association".  From the Missouri Independent::

“I’m calling for the Rule of Law Defense Fund with an important message,” Tuesday’s robocall. “The March to Save America is tomorrow in Washington D.C. at the Ellipse in President’s Park between E St. and Constitution Avenue on the south side of the White House, with doors opening at 7 a.m. At 1 p.m., we will march to the Capitol building and call on Congress to stop the steal. We are hoping patriots like you will join us to continue to fight to protect the integrity of our election. For more information, visit MarchtoSaveAmerica.com. This call is paid for and authorized by the Rule of Law Defense Fund.”

[TheDeamon]

March to not into.

And as previously noted, "marching on ____" in relation to Washington has a long history.

[kidv]

March to not into.

And as previously noted, "marching on ____" in relation to Washington has a long history.

I'm not sure the point being argued.  Marches on the Capitol have a long history.  Lawful ones require permits. 

https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/activities-requiring-permits

Non-permitted marches are taken as unlawful gatherings and those who undertake them generally do so in the spirit of civil disobedience, and generally accept the risk of being arrested.  Activating a mass of people always carries a "buyer beware" label, because of the inherent unpredictability of crowds.

[When a type of unlawful activity or expansion is inherently predictable and is directed at a particular target, greater likelihood of legal consequences attach.]

Is any of this in dispute?

[TheDrake]

Most people who march in civil disobedience don't bring *censored*ing pipe bombs with them.

[DonaldD]

Don't forget the molotov cocktails and homemade napalm...

[TheDrake]

And tasers. And firearms. And kevlar. But go ask the apologists, and they'll draw equivalence to cans of soup and pointed sticks.

[cherrypoptart]

Is it just me or does it seem like whenever it's some other group we're always reminded that we can't let a few bad members of the group spoil the image of the whole bunch? It's just a relatively small number of people and they are not representative of the vast majority. Muslim terrorists, BLM rioters, bad hombres, and so on. Fair enough.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the few bad actors stand for all Trump supporters. It's amazing how that works.

[Aris Katsaris]

Is it just me or does it seem like whenever it's some other group we're always reminded that we can't let a few bad members of the group spoil the image of the whole bunch? It's just a relatively small number of people and they are not representative of the vast majority. Muslim terrorists, BLM rioters, bad hombres, and so on. Fair enough.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the few bad actors stand for all Trump supporters. It's amazing how that works.

Let's make the proper analogy shall we? We have the group, and we have a subset of the group that supports a certain evil leader.

The same way that not all Muslims are Osama Bin Laden supporters, I'll grant you that not all Republicans are Trump supporters.

See, despite your claim that it's about "every other group", that's a decent distinction. Here's from several sides, as you ask:

Not all muslims are supporters of Osama Bin Laden.
Not all communists are supporters of Stalin.
Not all conservatives are supporters of Trump.

Where's the supposed hypocrisy?

[DonaldD]

cherry, which particular straw man are you trying to build, here?  I see lots of straw, but not much more than vague hand-waving...

[cherrypoptart]

You've got people out there inciting violence against Trump supporters and trying their best to ruin the lives of even the people who were just peacefully protesting like the owners of a Vietnamese restaurant, among others.

https://abc7chicago.com/tank-noodle-chicago-trump-yelp-rally-dc/9482003/


"I'll grant you that not all Republicans are Trump supporters."

Well the group I'm talking about IS the Trump supporters so you proved my point quite nicely there.

[yossarian22c]

Well the group I'm talking about IS the Trump supporters so you proved my point quite nicely there.

The Trump supporters out protesting for dictatorship?

[cherrypoptart]

Yeah and that's another thing.

Now anyone and everyone who has questions about the security and integrity of our elections is going to be branded as being the same people who stormed the capital and they will be accused of encouraging exactly that type of violence.

Again, it's very convenient how silencing any questioning or dissent works to the advantage of the left. Radio hosts are being told that if they continue to question the election results they will be pulled off the air.

"Mark Levin accuses ‘the media’ of exploiting the Capitol riots to silence conservatives"

https://news.yahoo.com/mark-levin-accuses-media-exploiting-070641290.html

He's right too. After all, we never want to let a crisis go to waste.

[msquared]

Question all you want. They are promoting massive fraud with no evidence.  They are not questioning. They are saying the fraud happened, are not supplying any evidence and asking their followers to "do something about it". That is the issue.

[Aris Katsaris]

"I'll grant you that not all Republicans are Trump supporters."

Well the group I'm talking about IS the Trump supporters so you proved my point quite nicely there.

Do please explain to me why we shouldn't treat Trump supporters same as the supporters of any other attempted dictator?

Some are misguided, some are evil. All support (knowingly or not) an evil man.

Same as the supporters of Stalin, or Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, peacefully protest in favour of your dictator, and I'll consider you about the same as a peaceful protestor in favour of Franco or Mussolini.

Do you think that we should treat you differently, simply because Trump seems to have failed so far in his attempt to overthrow democracy? What if he had succeeded? What if the mob had managed to kill Pence or Pelosi? Then Trump replaces the killed vice president with someone who'll do his bidding (e.g Giulliani), who says that he throws aways any electoral votes he doesn't like, appoints Trump president.

Is that fine for you cherry?

Would it have been fine for you cherry, if Pence had gone along with Trump's dictatorship plan, as Trump claimed he should have done so?

[rightleft22]

Their is difference between questioning  and spreading of disinformation
We can disagree on how to interpret the facts of something but if your going to make acquisitions not supported by the facts at hand that's a problem. A problem that isn't political right or left thing its just poor reasoning.

Take the video that Giuliani cut so that it could be taken out of context so it appeared to show fraud. When looking at the full vision the facts come to light and no fraud.  But for those looking for confirmation bias a deep look at the information is not required. Context not required. the doctored video proves their bias and they act on that. Who is to blame her. Giuliani should be disbarred but those who refuse to look at the whole video are also accountable for their failure of discernment. 

Should media outlets that only show the cut version of the video be held accountable. I think so. They should not be viewed as reliable news sources at the minimum.

It seems we only question when it suits us to ask them and that will not lead to dialog , learning or decrement

[DonaldD]

Republican Rep. Peter Meijer - it's not all Republicans, but it is some Republicans:

My colleague told me that efforts to overturn the election were wrong, and that voting to certify was a constitutional duty. But my colleague feared for family members, and the danger the vote would put them in. Profoundly shaken, my colleague voted to overturn.

An angry mob succeeded in threatening at least one member of Congress from performing what that member understood was a constitutional responsibility.

Worse yet, while a dead woman’s blood dried mere feet from our chamber, other Republican colleagues doubled down, repeating lies of a stolen election, baselessly deflecting blame for the Capitol assault from Trump loyalists to Antifa, doing whatever they could to justify, equivocate, rationalize or otherwise avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Rep. Peter Meijer
Blood has been spilled, and those who encouraged this insurrection are in too deep.

[msquared]

I never thought Trump supporters would be such sheeple, to be so easily led astray by Antifa instigators. Who knew they could so easily be turned from their normal peaceful selves into a mob like that.  /sarcasm

[TheDeamon]

Most people who march in civil disobedience don't bring *censored*ing pipe bombs with them.

Don't forget the molotov cocktails and homemade napalm...

And tasers. And firearms. And kevlar. But go ask the apologists, and they'll draw equivalence to cans of soup and pointed sticks.

Have you been paying attention to the "mostly peaceful protests" that have been going on this year?

Molotov Cocktails were known to be used in NYC off-hand, and presumably were used to set fire to a number of police vehicles in California, Oregon, Washington(state), Wisconsin, and a number of other places across the country.

Explosive devices were routinely being thrown about and detonated in Portland.

Body armor and molotov cocktails were also quite common at BLM riots across the country.

So were tasers and firearms for that matter, and lest you forget in light of all this talk about insurrectionist right-wingers, "the CHAZ" was the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone where some of the participants were declaring their independence from the United States, among other things. "CHAZ/CHOP Security" shot up a car, among other things, as well as the matter of BLM members shooting each other(Louisville, IIRC), or other BLM members shooting MAGA's (Portland, Denver).

Where is the evidence to support that what happened in DC was more than a flash in the pan riot? Or that many of the participants even knew that other participants had any intention to be a credible threat to any part of the government of the United States(Specifically members of Congress or the Executive Branch?).

[TheDeamon]

Question all you want. They are promoting massive fraud with no evidence.  They are not questioning. They are saying the fraud happened, are not supplying any evidence and asking their followers to "do something about it". That is the issue.

Have you heard what Mark Levin is complaining about? Or more accurately, do you know what his complaint is?

Seratil elucidated it in here previously. His grievance is with the fact that the electoral process for PotUS is to be set forth by the State Legislatures, not the State Courts, not the Federal Courts, and certainly not the Secretary of State or County/City Election Officials deciding to do their own thing without explicit authorization from the State Legislature.

[NobleHunter]

I'm afraid the next few weeks will give ample proof that this riot isn't just a once-off event.

[TheDeamon]

I'm afraid the next few weeks will give ample proof that this riot isn't just a once-off event.

But that won't be about Trump anymore at that point. It's going to be about how the Democrats respond to what just happened.

But they're incapable of intellectual honesty on this.

If you hold what happened this past week to have been an insurrection, then by that same standard, there is no way you can rationalize your way into saying the CHAZ was not an insurrection as well, at a bare minimum.

If you cannot acknowledge that you've set the bar at that level, there is no further point in trying to pursue dialogue on the matter as you cannot be intellectually honest about the topic at hand.

[TheDeamon]

March to not into.

And as previously noted, "marching on ____" in relation to Washington has a long history.

I'm not sure the point being argued.  Marches on the Capitol have a long history.  Lawful ones require permits. 

https://www.uscp.gov/visiting-capitol-hill/activities-requiring-permits

Non-permitted marches are taken as unlawful gatherings and those who undertake them generally do so in the spirit of civil disobedience, and generally accept the risk of being arrested.  Activating a mass of people always carries a "buyer beware" label, because of the inherent unpredictability of crowds.

And oddly enough Washington has a history going back well into the 19th Century of unlawful protests taking place on the National Mall(Such as the Washington Monument being occupied in protest for a long period of time, or the Military Veterans camping on the mall during the Hoover Admin IIRC as just two such highlights). So your point is?

Heck, we even point towards the riots in DC that happened over this past year which weren't having Trump as their speaker/leader.

[NobleHunter]

But that won't be about Trump anymore at that point. It's going to be about how the Democrats respond to what just happened.

But they're incapable of intellectual honesty on this.

If you hold what happened this past week to have been an insurrection, then by that same standard, there is no way you can rationalize your way into saying the CHAZ was not an insurrection as well, at a bare minimum.

If you cannot acknowledge that you've set the bar at that level, there is no further point in trying to pursue dialogue on the matter as you cannot be intellectually honest about the topic at hand.

The standard conservative response: look at what you're gong to make me do. So much for personal responsibility.

It'll still be about Trump because any further unrest will be in support of Trump. While they'll gleefully pretend their riots or protests or insurrections are now about the impeachment or being deplatformed or some other fig leaf of justification, the only thing the Democrats could do to prevent the follow-on conflict is to surrender and anoint Trump dictator for life.

How close did CHAZ get to murdering members of the Federal legislature? What threat did it pose to the Republic? I haven't bothered to take a position on the best nomenclature to describe events. Regardless of how similar CHAZ and the siege of the capitol building might be in kind, the difference of degree makes drawing similarities between them unconvincing.

[TheDrake]

Is it just me or does it seem like whenever it's some other group we're always reminded that we can't let a few bad members of the group spoil the image of the whole bunch? It's just a relatively small number of people and they are not representative of the vast majority. Muslim terrorists, BLM rioters, bad hombres, and so on. Fair enough.

But when the shoe is on the other foot the few bad actors stand for all Trump supporters. It's amazing how that works.

BLM marches, and a few people break away from the group and smash an EMPTY coffee shop window, possibly pushing through a barricade to do so. Trumpians march and literally EVERYONE pushed past the barricades to climb all over the capitol steps.

[Aris Katsaris]

Have you heard what Mark Levin is complaining about? Or more accurately, do you know what his complaint is?

Seratil elucidated it in here previously. His grievance is with the fact that the electoral process for PotUS is to be set forth by the State Legislatures, not the State Courts, not the Federal Courts, and certainly not the Secretary of State or County/City Election Officials deciding to do their own thing without explicit authorization from the State Legislature.

Utterly nobody believes this. A very clear pretense, as shown by how they miraculously only cared about that electoral process in states where Biden won, not in any state that Trump won.

*Outside* the Capitol, Trump was proclaiming to his followers that it was all about election fraud. *Inside* the Capitol, where every single person knew there wasn't any election fraud, they were having a vote about something something about how the electoral process was set. Which didn't have anythingto do with election fraud.

But see, nobody actually *cares* about whether a governor extended a registration date by 2 days, when it should have been the legislate, or whatever else their quibbles were -- even if the governor did so unlawfully, it's not a thing one overturns an election about. You can't have actually a coup by such an excuse, not even your own followers care: You can have a coup by pretending the other guy stole the election instead.

So, outside the Capitol, Trump pretended it was about election fraud -- inside the Capitol, Trumpist loyalists were proving their loyalty by disrupting the process with an utterly unrelated quibble about whether the state processes were legitimate.

If you hold what happened this past week to have been an insurrection, then by that same standard, there is no way you can rationalize your way into saying the CHAZ was not an insurrection as well, at a bare minimum.

CHAZ was definitely an insurrection.

And what happened this past week was an attempted coup by Donald Trump. It'd be an attempted coup even if no mob had attacked the Capitol, it was an attempted coup the moment he asked Pence to violate the constitution. Arguably it was an attempted coup from way back in November, but that's harder to prove since I'd have to convince you that Donald Trump didn't actually believe he was cheated out of the election even back then.

But the moment he asked Pence to violate the constitution, it became a coup even if Donald Trump was 100% honest.

[TheDrake]

CHAZ was an insurrection. But it wasn't gleefully supported by a large part of the population, unlike the capitol storming. As has been pointed out, CHAZ was done on empty buildings, not with people wearing escape hoods. Let's also understand the provocation that led to that, a guy drove his car into a crowd of protesters and then shot one of them dead. Anger at that is a lot more understandable than anger at a mythological stolen election.

[msquared]

Even the House Minority Leader is telling Trump is was his followers. And he was there.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-minority-leader-kevin-mccarthy-082419143.html

[Aris Katsaris]

Well, we now see that (of course!) Trump explicitly joins into the next big lie that's getting circulated.

As with the election fraud claims.

As with Birthergate.

As with several other conspiracy theories, less famous ones, from "Obama and Biden had Seal 6 team killed to hide the fact that Osama Bin Laden's corpse was a body double" all the way to "Bill Clinton killed Epstein", all of which promoted to some extent or another by Donald Trump.

But oh no, it's not Trump who keeps pushing conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, it's the Democrats. Because they dared *gasp* investigate the actually-happened Russian interference. Obviously actually investigating an actual crime the actual sin here. /s

[DonaldD]

Here's an article on the view of the Capitol attack from the perspective of the Capitol Police officers on scene: Inside the fight for the Capitol: US Capitol Police officers recount being unprepared and 'betrayed'

It starts with the preparations, or lack thereof, the day before and the morning of, and follows through to the ensuing fustercluck.

It also details how the attackers came prepared with gas canisters, flash bangs, gas masks, ear plugs, and assorted weapons and organization, possibly including a misdirection plan involving the pipe bombs.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/19/958240531/members-of-right-wing-militias-extremist-groups-are-latest-charged-in-capitol-si

At least eight people allegedly affiliated with organizations such as The Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Texas Freedom Force, and other self-described Nazis and white supremacists were among those who joined the thousands that stormed the U.S. Capitol building, according to federal investigators.

These are the people Trump appeals too.

I've seen several people interviewed who thought Trump should pardon them because they thought they were doing what he told them to do. I hope the Senate has the courage to convict him. I think it has a real chance because I think many of them want Trump out of the running for the 2024 primary and other than that its a symbolic gesture because he's already out of power. Will 17 Republicans find the courage to convict Trump.

[DonaldD]

No.

[yossarian22c]

No.

Sadly you're likely correct. I think there are 3 publicly right now. To get 14 more I think requires McConnel support it. If McConnel gets on board and conviction is likely I wouldn't be surprised to see the number go as high as 75 or 80 to convict.

[msquared]

Barr says that Trumps promotion of election fraud led to the Capitol riot.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-barr-says-trump-election-172654536.html

[DonaldD]

It's actually sad that this will not be met with a universal "well, duh."

[msquared]

I think the point that needs to be made is that the incitement was not just on Jan 6.  He had been building up to it since the election.  So while his speech on that day, by itself, may not be enough to find guilt, if you add it to all of the previous stuff he had said and told his supporters, I think it is obvious how his supporters thought he was telling them to do what they did.

[DonaldD]

Technically, he started months in advance of election day... but yes, his incitement was definitely a long-term pattern

[yossarian22c]

I think the point that needs to be made is that the incitement was not just on Jan 6.  He had been building up to it since the election.  So while his speech on that day, by itself, may not be enough to find guilt, if you add it to all of the previous stuff he had said and told his supporters, I think it is obvious how his supporters thought he was telling them to do what they did.

And prior to the election. The only way we lose is fraud. Then every lie he told about "we won in a landslide," blah, blah, post election. I agree it should all be put forward in the case against him.

[cherrypoptart]

Publicly questioning and especially publicly not accepting the results of an election should be a federal crime because it can incite violence the same as yelling fire when there isn't one in a crowded theater except it's even worse because it questions the foundation of our entire system of governance it is actually not just incitement but also sedition and treason. Well at least when a Democrat wins, well... supposedly wins. Oops. They're coming to take me away!

The histrionics over this after the encouragement for the months long BLM riots and the four years of not accepting the results of an election with Nancy even going so far as to call  Amy Coney Barrett “an illegitimate Supreme Court justice" all just takes the cake.  Seriously, it is getting harder and harder to take Democrats seriously. I know many believe everything they are saying but it still feels like we're getting trolled because the cognitive dissonance is so self-referential it's meta, literally freaking out about exactly the same thing that's been going on for the last four years. I mean, the only thing the Republicans could do to top what the Democrats have been doing all this time is to now call for the impeachment of Biden because of voter fraud. Yeah, sounds totally ridiculous, but that's exactly what the Democrats did to Trump and it's hilarious how Democrats apparently just don't see it even as they go completely off the rails.

It used to be, back in the pre-President Biden America, you could say that you believe the election was stolen because of massive voter fraud and people would say well that's your opinion and everyone has one so whatever. But now, it's like, "YOU CAN'T SAY THAT! PEOPLE WILL DIE! TREASON!"

As Tim Robbins put it, "A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation..."

Now anyone questioning the results of the election will be destroyed, totally and without mercy. And the left cheers with bloodcurdling ululations.

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." - Senator Padme Amidala

The scorched Earth policy of going after outgoing politicians including their families and everyone who ever worked for them is why in third world countries the leaders refuse to give up power, because they know if they do they will be destroyed. Just like what Democrats are now intent on doing to America. Along with running the money printing presses nonstop too, of course.

[msquared]

Cherry

You really can not see a difference between Trump claiming for months, with no evidence, that there was massive fraud and John Q Public doing the same?

And Pelosi's calling Barrett an illegitimate Supreme Court justice had nothing to do with the election other than the Republicans changing the rules about "when" a SC Justice can be debated on in an election year.

You do know that one of the freshman GOP members is going to submit impeachment proceeding against Biden on Jan 21, right? For abuse of power.

The impeachment is not itself about voter fraud.  It is about lies about voter fraud.  Unfounded claims of massive voter fraud across several states. With no evidence of this massive fraud.  Using these claims to rile up his base and telling them the system is broken, when he is the one that is breaking it.

[cherrypoptart]

It used to be politicians could say whatever and it was up to the voters to decide. That's not good enough anymore. For four years the Democrats screamed about a stolen election. Now if they say things that used to be okay before it's called incitement, sedition, and treason. And it isn't just politicians either. The My Pillow Guy is John Q. Public and he just had his products dropped by a bunch of stores. They aren't just going after politicians. They are going after everyone. It wouldn't surprise me if part of the military vetting process they are using now to screen troops includes something about whether or not they believe in massive voter fraud. If you do, your name goes on the list. The social apps also seem to be using massive voter fraud as their litmus test.

There was a time when you could believe in something without proof. You could proselytize your belief without any evidence. Those days are gone. I wonder how that's going to bode for God.

"Massive voter fraud" is turning into America's new shibboleth.

[msquared]

Because it is a lie that undermines the basic tenets of our society.

And I have not heard Dems screaming that the last election was stolen.  They have said that Russia interfered, but most of them accepted Trump as President.

Trump has brought this on himself. And the Republicans who supported him have brought it on themselves by not standing up to Trump when he lied and lied and lied.