The Trump Presidency

[mathman]

Four more days and he'll be gone. Will this post end also?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Learn to read.

Provocateurs are very dangerous criminals, part of organized crime on the highest level, and they fulfill what their chiefs tell them. If their chiefs have an interest in victims, then they will murder as well. And of course they will not murder themselves. So, the very idea that these "5 people killed ... were no provocateurs" would be somehow an argument against me is completely stupid.

It looks like you are now the third (after James R and iceaura) who does not know completely how provocateurs work.

Whether provocateurs (most likely Russian) were at work or not is irrelevant. Trump created an environment that made him vulnerable, when he incited his unstable "deplorables" into action against his own government. He obviously was stupid enough to some how think that he wouldn't set himself up for the sort of fictional conspiracy you are referring to.
Part of the reason he is considered so incompetent is his extreme naivety.
He opened the door to Congress and... well... the rest is history.


Just curious:
If you could have a chat to Trump in private what would you advise him (other than to follow Putin's lead)?

 

[pjdude1219]

Learn to read.

i know how to read. learn how to make sense.

Provocateurs are very dangerous criminals, part of organized crime on the highest level, and they fulfill what their chiefs tell them. If their chiefs have an interest in victims, then they will murder as well. And of course they will not murder themselves.

literally none of that is true. do even know what the word provocateur means? or are you doing the typical libertarian thing of redefining words to suit your bs?

So, the very idea that these "5 people killed ... were no provocateurs" would be somehow an argument against me is completely stupid.

only thing COMPLETELY stupid here is your posts. none of that is anything even remotely what a provocateur is. also you completely missed the point. i was saying the dead were provocateurs and were the ones responsible for most of the violence at the BLM and antifa protests.

It looks like you are now the third (after James R and iceaura) who does not know completely how provocateurs work.

we know how provocateurs work we also know the meaning of the word something you don't. the only person here that doesn't understand how they work is you. quite frankly your posts make you look like a complete dumbass with an utter lack of a connection to reality.

 

[iceaura]

Sometimes yes. But identifying provocateurs simply by watching a video is a hard job.

Posting idiotic assertions of their existence is not difficult - especially for those, like you, who parrot the Republican media feed and have no interest in checking facts.

As far as identifying provocateurs: In my region, the police did it by careful investigation and examination of the evidence - video, eyewitness identification, prior arrest and criminal records, etc. Since the police themselves were heavily Republican biased, especially against BLM and such groups (who were demonstrating against the police), they were fairly slow to do that, and did not publicize their findings - but BLM folks and others who supported the BLM cause etc were able to track their arrests and indictments and so forth.

So far the police in the US have identified no BLM agents provocateur in the many incidents of local fascist violence over the past decades. They have identified dozens of fascist agents provocateur in BLM demonstrations and related political marches etc. Leftwing and related activists and monitors have identified hundreds more - many of them affiliated with the police themselves. It's a common and familiar tactic among the groups affiliated with the US fascist movement of the past few decades.

There is also the obvious factor of police and authority support - like other undercover operatives, agents provocateur are much more easily run by State and other authorities than by neighborhood and community political organizations.

That is also the obvious conclusion any informed American would draw from the extensive video footage and social media posting from the Capitol riot and assault on Congress - there were no BLM folks involved.
( "Antifa", of course, does not even exist in that sense - you have made a fool of yourself by parroting that particular media feed ).

If you have software for face identification and a sufficiently large database behind you, that's a different question.

We do.
We also have eyewitnesses, braggarts and boasters, and reams of social media posting by the rioters themselves.

To repeat myself: I do not even claim to have any proof that this is a BLM/Antifa false flag operation.

Too late. You already posted - there's no walking that one back. It's like that dumbass Hilary-hate video you posted - your source is revealed, your gullibility proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

[Sarkus]

Here are my claims:
- The official Dem version (Trump has incited that storm with his speech) is extremely implausible.

Have you even listened to his speech?
To take an extract of the transcript:
“We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …

“You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …

“We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

(bolding is mine).

So in response: that Trump incited the crowd with his speech may be implausible to you because it doesn't fit your agenda, but to most genuinely unbiased people it is highly plausible, and in fact the most plausible explanation, evidenced by the footage seen, by eyewitnesses etc. Now, whether Trump intended them to actually storm the Capitol building, that is perhaps implausible. But there is little doubt that he did incite them, and that incitement fuelled, if not directly led to, the violence, the storming, and the deaths. Denial of that as the most plausible explanation is to evidence your own delusional thinking and/or irrational thinking.

- The consideration of cui bono suggests a Dem-side provocation. Evidence: The Dems obviously have gained a lot. And there is no plausible scenario how Trump could have gained whatever from storming the Capitol.

Your infatuation with cui bono really does evidence you as a conspiracy nut.
But let's look at the notion, shall we...

Polar bears and penguins benefit from extremely cold climates, right? Most other species, including humanity, don't fare so well. Polar bears and emperor penguins therefore clearly have the most to gain from a cold Antarctica, and hence polar bears and emperor penguins, by application of cui bono, are clearly responsible for the cold climates in the polar regions.

Umbrella salesmen also benefit the most from the rain: therefore, by application of cui bono, umbrella salesmen cause the rain.

Conspiracy theorists seem to rely on cui bono to fuel their need to identify the otherwise implausible as the most likely. They do this by ignoring the wealth of other information, and in failing to realise that reality usually isn't revealed by asking a single question. But when what they see as the answer to that question suits their need, of course they focus on it.

There's also Hanlon's Razor that you (and all conspiracy theorists) seem to fail to accept: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Is it more likely that the Democrats, through agents provocateur, staged the whole thing in order to be able to impeach the outgoing (in 2 weeks) President, or simply that Trump stupidly incited his crowd (although never with the intention that they storm the Capitol) and that his supporters, through their own stupidity, ended up storming the Capitol?

You're also committing the informal logical fallacy of "Faciens hoc ergo factum ut faciat hoc" ("made this, therefore made to make this") - i.e. your argument is "since X caused Y, X must have been instigated to bring about Y". To be clearer: you're arguing that because the storming of the Capitol resulted in the Democrats getting some fuel against Trump, the storming of the Capitol must have been instigated (by the Dems) to bring about their getting that fuel.
After all, umbrella salesmen were caused by the presence of rain, and therefore rain was instigated so as to create umbrella salesmen, right?

- Claims about evidence for the presence of provocateurs have been made a lot, enough for foreign observers getting them and distributing them further.

"Claims about evidence" really have been made a lot, I agree. Unfortunately those claims are never supported by the actual evidence. Not a single case has come to light (other than someone claiming to look to document what they saw as a moment of history) and been confirmed. But if you have that evidence, rather than just claims to there being evidence, I'm sure we're all more than happy to look at it.

 

[Schmelzer]

Now, whether Trump intended them to actually storm the Capitol building, that is perhaps implausible.

But this is what would be necessary. Or are some unintentional side effects sufficient for an impeachment?
But there is little doubt that he did incite them, and that incitement fuelled, if not directly led to, the violence, the storming, and the deaths. Denial of that as the most plausible explanation is to evidence your own delusional thinking and/or irrational thinking.

Your infatuation with cui bono really does evidence you as a conspiracy nut.
But let's look at the notion, shall we...
Polar bears and penguins benefit from extremely cold climates, right? Most other species, including humanity, don't fare so well. Polar bears and emperor penguins therefore clearly have the most to gain from a cold Antarctica, and hence polar bears and emperor penguins, by application of cui bono, are clearly responsible for the cold climates in the polar regions.
Umbrella salesmen also benefit the most from the rain: therefore, by application of cui bono, umbrella salesmen cause the rain.

Funny but irrelevant. Your example are clearly absurd because cui bono is only a first question. And obviously there should be also the ability to do this. I have not ignored this, and explained how two busloads of provocateurs are sufficient.

There's also Hanlon's Razor that you (and all conspiracy theorists) seem to fail to accept: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Is it more likely that the Democrats, through agents provocateur, staged the whole thing in order to be able to impeach the outgoing (in 2 weeks) President, or simply that Trump stupidly incited his crowd (although never with the intention that they storm the Capitol) and that his supporters, through their own stupidity, ended up storming the Capitol?

If the explanation is stupidity of Trump as well as his supporters, then impeaching him would not be the adequate reaction too. In this case, the reaction of Biden naming those stupid guys terrorists and impeaching Trump is an inadequate and very dangerous escalation. What would be a more adequate reaction to that storm? I would propose to react in the same way as it has been done 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington

But, no, stupidity of Trump and his supporters is not sufficient. You would need yet another stupidity, namely the stupidity of the Capitol police. Imagine, a situation where something is planned to do in the Capitol, with a mass demonstration of people who clearly don't like the expected final decision to be reached there. It is obvious for the dumbest policeman that in this case where would have to be sufficient police power to protect the area of the Capitol itself against any attempt to storm it. And this is stupidity on the level which would be named stupidity if an amateur would have done it, but it was done by professionals, and even good professionals if their high position can be in the US used as an indication for this (ok, nobody expects this, high position simply means corrupt as in every other banana republic too).

And, BTW, cooperation of the police is necessary. - and the state with greatest army in the world, with the greatest spy network of the world, extraordinary abilities for surveillance, and a police with arms which in other countries are accessible only to the army, does not prepare to defend the Capitol against the imaginable escalations by insane protesters? Sorry, no.

You're also committing the informal logical fallacy of "Faciens hoc ergo factum ut faciat hoc" ("made this, therefore made to make this") - i.e. your argument is "since X caused Y, X must have been instigated to bring about Y". To be clearer: you're arguing that because the storming of the Capitol resulted in the Democrats getting some fuel against Trump, the storming of the Capitol must have been instigated (by the Dems) to bring about their getting that fuel.

Simply no. This is not the logic I use. I apply standard police techniques which are logically consistent. The question cui bono is a necessary step in every investigation, a claim that A has done X if A had no interest in doing X is dubious at best.

"Claims about evidence" really have been made a lot, I agree. Unfortunately those claims are never supported by the actual evidence. Not a single case has come to light (other than someone claiming to look to document what they saw as a moment of history) and been confirmed. But if you have that evidence, rather than just claims to there being evidence, I'm sure we're all more than happy to look at it.

Of course, claims of evidence will be banned from the social media and outside the social media they have no chance at all. Nobody will care about them. Some people with historical interest will collect whatever they find before it is banned and blocked, but I'm not such a collector.

Note that I'm not that suicidal to participate in such games. I'm happy that I'm far away and don't have to hide common sense arguments commenting these kindergarten games. Have you never had an interest in conversation, say, with Nazis, Stalinists or or Red Khmer to understand how such horrible things become possible? What makes people so aggressive that they become able to do what they have done? Thinking about arguments which could have stopped them? I have such an interest, and I have here a nice field to do all this, among those seem to be able to do such things in near future too. I see here already many of the emotions typical for the Germans against Jews in Nazi time: A combination of contempt for those despicable Untermenschen who support Trump in combination with irrational hatred. Should we expect here protest if Biden starts to send Trumpists in masses into concentration camps? Sorry, I doubt.

 

[river]

But this is what would be necessary. Or are some unintentional side effects sufficient for an impeachment?
But there is little doubt that he did incite them, and that incitement fuelled, if not directly led to, the violence, the storming, and the deaths. Denial of that as the most plausible explanation is to evidence your own delusional thinking and/or irrational thinking.

Funny but irrelevant. Your example are clearly absurd because cui bono is only a first question. And obviously there should be also the ability to do this. I have not ignored this, and explained how two busloads of provocateurs are sufficient.

If the explanation is stupidity of Trump as well as his supporters, then impeaching him would not be the adequate reaction too. In this case, the reaction of Biden naming those stupid guys terrorists and impeaching Trump is an inadequate and very dangerous escalation. What would be a more adequate reaction to that storm? I would propose to react in the same way as it has been done 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington

But, no, stupidity of Trump and his supporters is not sufficient. You would need yet another stupidity, namely the stupidity of the Capitol police. Imagine, a situation where something is planned to do in the Capitol, with a mass demonstration of people who clearly don't like the expected final decision to be reached there. It is obvious for the dumbest policeman that in this case where would have to be sufficient police power to protect the area of the Capitol itself against any attempt to storm it. And this is stupidity on the level which would be named stupidity if an amateur would have done it, but it was done by professionals, and even good professionals if their high position can be in the US used as an indication for this (ok, nobody expects this, high position simply means corrupt as in every other banana republic too).

And, BTW, cooperation of the police is necessary. - and the state with greatest army in the world, with the greatest spy network of the world, extraordinary abilities for surveillance, and a police with arms which in other countries are accessible only to the army, does not prepare to defend the Capitol against the imaginable escalations by insane protesters? Sorry, no.

Simply no. This is not the logic I use. I apply standard police techniques which are logically consistent. The question cui bono is a necessary step in every investigation, a claim that A has done X if A had no interest in doing X is dubious at best.

Of course, claims of evidence will be banned from the social media and outside the social media they have no chance at all. Nobody will care about them. Some people with historical interest will collect whatever they find before it is banned and blocked, but I'm not such a collector.

Note that I'm not that suicidal to participate in such games. I'm happy that I'm far away and don't have to hide common sense arguments commenting these kindergarten games. Have you never had an interest in conversation, say, with Nazis, Stalinists or or Red Khmer to understand how such horrible things become possible? What makes people so aggressive that they become able to do what they have done? Thinking about arguments which could have stopped them? I have such an interest, and I have here a nice field to do all this, among those seem to be able to do such things in near future too. I see here already many of the emotions typical for the Germans against Jews in Nazi time: A combination of contempt for those despicable Untermenschen who support Trump in combination with irrational hatred. Should we expect here protest if Biden starts to send Trumpists in masses into concentration camps? Sorry, I doubt.

Highlighted

They just might . They just might .

There is Discussion of a few supporters of trump , as well as trump being held accountable for January 6 , 2021 , insurrection.

 

[sculptor]

on the lighter side:
and now
a brief musical interlude:

 

[Sarkus]

But this is what would be necessary. Or are some unintentional side effects sufficient for an impeachment?

Yes, they can be sufficient if they were forseeable, even if unintended, consequences. In fact the article of his impeachment stated that he (Trump) had made statements that "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action".

Funny but irrelevant. Your example are clearly absurd because cui bono is only a first question. And obviously there should be also the ability to do this. I have not ignored this, and explained how two busloads of provocateurs are sufficient.

The examples are designed to be absurd, to highlight the absurdity of your focus on it. And you do focus on it. You try to then fit every other scrap of heresay to fit the outcome you want.

If the explanation is stupidity of Trump as well as his supporters, then impeaching him would not be the adequate reaction too.

Getting rid of a stupid President that is stupid enough to incite (albeit perhaps unintentionally) an invasion of the Capitol building, to challenge democracy etc... yeah, that seems an adequate reaction. But again, you seem to view what is "adequate" by the end result you want to see. Of course you won't see it as adequate because then you might have to accept that stupidity was the explanation... Trump stupid not to concede, Trump stupid to incite his followers, and his followers stupid to invade the Capitol building.

In this case, the reaction of Biden naming those stupid guys terrorists and impeaching Trump is an inadequate and very dangerous escalation.

Naming them terrorists was perhaps not the best thing, but it shows the seriousness by which people hold the actions. People genuinely feared for their lives, and 5 people lost their lives.

What would be a more adequate reaction to that storm? I would propose to react in the same way as it has been done 2018: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/04/kavanaugh-supreme-court-protests-washington

You mean treat it like a peaceful sit-in, where noone was particularly fearful for their life, and where they weren't being incited to "never concede" etc by a sitting President?
"Hey, why are we looking to impeach the President when we could react to the riot like a previous one that was more peaceful, where noone was killed, noone feared for their lives, and where the President hadn't incited them and wasn't even involved (such that impeachment was never a consideration)?" And you still think you're being sensible?

But, no, stupidity of Trump and his supporters is not sufficient. You would need yet another stupidity, namely the stupidity of the Capitol police.

Who said the stupidity was limited to Trump and his supporters? Stupidity has no boundaries, no walls, and does not discriminate. Fine, let's bring in the Capitol police as well: it is still more likely to be the combination of stupidity than the ridiculous unsupported notions that you are coming up with.

Imagine, a situation where something is planned to do in the Capitol, with a mass demonstration of people who clearly don't like the expected final decision to be reached there. It is obvious for the dumbest policeman that in this case where would have to be sufficient police power to protect the area of the Capitol itself against any attempt to storm it. And this is stupidity on the level which would be named stupidity if an amateur would have done it, but it was done by professionals, and even good professionals if their high position can be in the US used as an indication for this (ok, nobody expects this, high position simply means corrupt as in every other banana republic too).

Sure. Stupidity, in hindsight, not to have a heightened security presence. But perhaps they had their (non-conspiracy theory) reasons, such as not wanting to provoke the crowd. Or maybe they thought that the gathering would be civil. How many people would genuinely have thought that they would end up storming the Capitol? Seriously? Sure, in hindsight you can point to stupidity all over the place, assign it to many people. But stupidity is still far more likely than anything you have come up with. You just don't like the simplicity of it. Instead you'd rather have some convoluted theory where people aren't stupid, and where everything happens because someone intends it to.

And, BTW, cooperation of the police is necessary. - and the state with greatest army in the world, with the greatest spy network of the world, extraordinary abilities for surveillance, and a police with arms which in other countries are accessible only to the army, does not prepare to defend the Capitol against the imaginable escalations by insane protesters? Sorry, no.

I'm sure many questions are being asked as to why the lack of police presence. But again, you're looking for a ridiculous conclusion that simply doesn't acknowledge stupidity.
Which is ironic.

Simply no. This is not the logic I use. I apply standard police techniques which are logically consistent. The question cui bono is a necessary step in every investigation, a claim that A has done X if A had no interest in doing X is dubious at best.

Sure - one can usually reject suspects if they don't benefit from the crime. But that's not what you're doing. You are taking the question of who has the most to benefit, and accusing them while hand-waving away every other more plausible conclusion because they don't fit your agenda. You are focussing on the question of cui bono, for one, and then trying to fit every other thing toward that suspect, and in doing so you are indeed committing the fallacy of Faciens hoc ergo factum ut faciat hoc, as explained. Everything you are doing is to try to show how the intended outcome was brought about by the people you think have the most to benefit. Because the Dems have impeached Trump due to the riots, you are arguing that the riots were instigated in order to bring about his impeachment. So yes, it is the very logic you are using.

Of course, claims of evidence will be banned from the social media and outside the social media they have no chance at all. Nobody will care about them. Some people with historical interest will collect whatever they find before it is banned and blocked, but I'm not such a collector.

So once again you're admitting you have zero evidence for your claims, and zero evidence for your supposed theory. But you'd rather take that zero evidence over an explanation as simple as stupidity? Oh, the irony is thick with this one.

Note that I'm not that suicidal to participate in such games. I'm happy that I'm far away and don't have to hide common sense arguments commenting these kindergarten games.

Ironic, in that you've so far hidden yourself from common sense arguments thus far.

Have you never had an interest in conversation, say, with Nazis, Stalinists or or Red Khmer to understand how such horrible things become possible? What makes people so aggressive that they become able to do what they have done? Thinking about arguments which could have stopped them? I have such an interest, and I have here a nice field to do all this, among those seem to be able to do such things in near future too. I see here already many of the emotions typical for the Germans against Jews in Nazi time: A combination of contempt for those despicable Untermenschen who support Trump in combination with irrational hatred. Should we expect here protest if Biden starts to send Trumpists in masses into concentration camps? Sorry, I doubt.

And now you end with yet more nonsense, but at least something that Godwin foresaw.

Your concession in this argument is duly accepted.

 

[Quantum Quack]

In this case, the reaction of Biden naming those stupid guys terrorists and impeaching Trump is an inadequate and very dangerous escalation. What would be a more adequate reaction to that storm?

Removing Trump from office using the 25th and making use of Pence as a stand in until inauguration would have been the safest option.
He should have been forced to stand down as soon as his mental issues became apparent. That was well before he was elected, but alas no one took his "issues" seriously even though they were obvious from the get go.
The USA needs the impeachment trial so that it can take a hard look at what went wrong, admit mistakes and make changes to systems accordingly.

Glossing over the problem by allowing Trump to just fade away is not going to solve anything...
You gotta remember he is just a man and there are literally thousands that could do a much better job of it than he can.
Allowing a mere male to cling to power when they are not fit to do so is part of the global problem facing most non-Westminster governments. Over stating the mans importance when in fact it is the people who are the priority.

Now Trump has awoken those patriots who actually believe in the value of the constitution, see it seriously threatened and are now having extreme thoughts about what to do about it..
There are many moderates that are deeply offended by what Trump incited.
yes, moderates can be forced to take extreme action to protect their way of life...

So Trump has to slip away to a military base on inauguration day and hopefully he will make it though the next few weeks with out dire consequences.

The impeachment of Trump will hopefully go some way in assuaging the rage that has been brewing and he may yet survive with out excessive violence projected at him. (and those associated)

 

[Schmelzer]

Yes, they can be sufficient if they were forseeable, even if unintended, consequences. In fact the article of his impeachment stated that he (Trump) had made statements that "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action".

I'm not impressed. If there is essentially no police, at least not enough in that situation, this also "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action".

The examples are designed to be absurd, to highlight the absurdity of your focus on it. And you do focus on it. You try to then fit every other scrap of heresay to fit the outcome you want.

There is nothing absurd with focussing on cui bono. Absurd are only your examples.

Getting rid of a stupid President that is stupid enough to incite (albeit perhaps unintentionally) an invasion of the Capitol building, to challenge democracy etc... yeah, that seems an adequate reaction. But again, you seem to view what is "adequate" by the end result you want to see.

You end as all those who speculate about what I want: you are completely off. What you describe as what makes an action adequate is a justification for a coup. In a state of law, the law should matter, not if you think the president is stupid or if he is challenging some ideology.

Of course you won't see it as adequate because then you might have to accept that stupidity was the explanation... Trump stupid not to concede, Trump stupid to incite his followers, and his followers stupid to invade the Capitol building.

I have no problem conceding that Trump is stupid. What I think is that it is certain that he was weak. Essentially he was alone, he had no team. So, he had a lot of people around him which were traitors. And so there was also no team, at least no adequate one, for security of the pro-Trump demos.

Of course, I like it that he does not concede, for political reasons. That the elections in the US have been plausibly faked, this harms the US soft power, which starts regime change operations all over the world where falsification of elections is a standard argument. And if Trump is not conceding, and the Trump supporters continue to believe in the stolen elections, this makes the claim much more plausible all over the world. The people elsewhere will naturally trust what the people in that country think - if faking elections would be impossible, the local people would not believe such things.

Naming them terrorists was perhaps not the best thing, but it shows the seriousness by which people hold the actions.

No. If political statements of the president elected have the intention "to show the seriousness by which people hold the actions", instead of caring for the political consequences, the justification for impeachment simply for being inadequate as a president would apply to Biden as well.

People genuinely feared for their lives, and 5 people lost their lives.
You mean treat it like a peaceful sit-in, where noone was particularly fearful for their life, and where they weren't being incited to "never concede" etc by a sitting President?

Of course, whatever comparisons you make, there will always be a lot of differences. So what?

"Hey, why are we looking to impeach the President when we could react to the riot like a previous one that was more peaceful, where noone was killed, noone feared for their lives, and where the President hadn't incited them and wasn't even involved (such that impeachment was never a consideration)?" And you still think you're being sensible?

I think it makes no sense to care about what you think about me. I look at the possible consequences. As every politician should. Is there a danger of civil war? I think there is, however small. And in such a situation it is important to deescalate, with whatever means. Even if this means not to react or to react in a much weaker way to some actions of the other side. What Biden does is escalation. Trump has, with his second speech after he became aware of the storm, deescalated. So the adequate answer would be deescalation too.

 

[Schmelzer]

Sure. Stupidity, in hindsight, not to have a heightened security presence. But perhaps they had their (non-conspiracy theory) reasons, such as not wanting to provoke the crowd.

Nonsense. These are professionals. To present all the means necessary on the territory of the Capitol is not provoking. What provokes is direct confrontation.

Or maybe they thought that the gathering would be civil.

After the BLM riots? Think about what you write. These are, according to iceaura, evil fascist, so they have to be clearly much more dangerous than the "mostly peaceful" BLM demonstrations, not? And they were, in 7%, not peaceful at all, but simply riots. Do you really want to say that once these are pro-Trumpers, the probability of this becoming a riot is much smaller than those 7%? And it had to be a much lower probability, else not preparing for this would be criminal neglect or so.

How many people would genuinely have thought that they would end up storming the Capitol? Seriously?

Not many. How many have really stormed the Capitol, instead of using the fact that the police started to let them in to visit it to take a selfie inside?

Sure, in hindsight you can point to stupidity all over the place, assign it to many people. But stupidity is still far more likely than anything you have come up with. You just don't like the simplicity of it. Instead you'd rather have some convoluted theory where people aren't stupid, and where everything happens because someone intends it to.

Feel free to think so. I don't, for example, care much about the question if the demonstrators are stupid. Beyond a few "professional" demonstrators, they show no initiatives but follow the others, like sheeple. Professional policemen know much better than me how to handle them, they have the means to do this. So, the level of stupidity of the masses is usually the same, independent of the politics, and can be handled. (Except for mass panics, which will happen if too many people want to move in one direction.) There are much smaller groups of "professional" demonstrators who can act in unexpected ways, sometimes following some plans, but these guys are not stupid, at least not at the tactical level. These groups are those who transform those 7% of the BLM demos into riots. The police always has to expect that such groups will be present.

I'm sure many questions are being asked as to why the lack of police presence. But again, you're looking for a ridiculous conclusion that simply doesn't acknowledge stupidity. Which is ironic.

The inadequacy of the police is so obvious that there is no base to blame the demonstrators at all. Most of them were behaving adequately even inside the Capitol, not much different from tourists looking around and taking selfies. That was, with only a minor exaggeration, a storm by invitation of the police. That's why I say that two busloads of antifa provocateurs would be sufficient to do the job.

BTW, given the complete failure of the police, one cannot blame Trump at all. Because, with adequate police behavior, a storm would have been impossible whatever he says. Even if he would have really incited them, say, saying "Go to the Capitol, try to go in, it is your house!!!!!!!11", the result would have been only two water cannons in action and some tear gas to stop that nonsense. Of course, this would have been really an incitement of violence, but even in this case a fair judge would take into account that this incitement to storm the Capitol had no real chance of success, which would transform it into some sort of malediction.

Sure - one can usually reject suspects if they don't benefit from the crime. But that's not what you're doing. You are taking the question of who has the most to benefit, and accusing them while hand-waving away every other more plausible conclusion because they don't fit your agenda.

You use "agenda", that means, you have no longer serious arguments?

Let's look at the facts. Cui bono we have answered. 100% in favor of the Dems. Zero motivation for Trump to suggest them to storm the Capitol. Then, we have to look at the abilities of the sides. The Dems need a police essentially inviting a storm by openly showing their de facto absence and two busloads of Antifa for the case of the demonstrators being too peaceful. Do you deny that police cooperation was necessary and some busloads of Antifa sufficient? If not, fine, this was my point.

Note also that the main point of the cui bono question is to exclude a lot of people, namely all those who had no interest at all in that happening. So you need implausible motivations or extreme stupidity.

You are focussing on the question of cui bono, for one, and then trying to fit every other thing toward that suspect, and in doing so you are indeed committing the fallacy of Faciens hoc ergo factum ut faciat hoc, as explained.

As if repeating a claim without arguments which I have explicitly already rejected, with arguments, would be an argument.

Everything you are doing is to try to show how the intended outcome was brought about by the people you think have the most to benefit. Because the Dems have impeached Trump due to the riots, you are arguing that the riots were instigated in order to bring about his impeachment. So yes, it is the very logic you are using.

No, no, no again. I have clarified that the story of one side is a reasonable and self-consistent story. The other side had a motive to do this, had the ability to do this, and that side claims to have some evidence.

And I have clarified that the story of the other side - Trump intentionally inciting the people to storm the Capitol - is nonsensical.

You present a third story, completely stupidity everywhere. Trump so stupid that he does not recognize that his emotional speech may cause such things which he did not intent, the demonstrators so stupid to storm the Capitol, the police so stupid that it did not even prepare a little bit, even that this is the only job they have. And Biden so stupid to escalate by naming them terrorists and to start impeachments and so on.

Here I have found a weak point, namely that if Trump had no knowledge about the complete incompetence or criminal neglect of the Capitol police, he was unable to foresee that his speech, however emotional, would incite more than what could be solved by two loads of water canons.

So once again you're admitting you have zero evidence for your claims, and zero evidence for your supposed theory. But you'd rather take that zero evidence over an explanation as simple as stupidity? Oh, the irony is thick with this one.

First, it is not my theory, but the theory accepted as almost obvious by a majority of sources outside Western propaganda (roughly 2/3, the remaining are closer to your stupidity theory). Then, I have no ability and no intention to prove something, but I can compare the plausibility of the different stories by evaluating their weak points. The result is that the official version is complete nonsense, that your stupidity version has weak points, but is not completely implausible, and that the version with provocation is simply the most plausible one.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not impressed.

Of course not, as if doesn't suit your pre-conceived agenda.

If there is essentially no police, at least not enough in that situation, this also "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action".

I'm glad you used the word "also". Perhaps it did also contribute - but Trump wasn't impeached for what the police might or might not do, but for what he did.

There is nothing absurd with focussing on cui bono. Absurd are only your examples.

Which highlights the absurdity of focussing on cui bono.

You end as all those who speculate about what I want: you are completely off. What you describe as what makes an action adequate is a justification for a coup. In a state of law, the law should matter, not if you think the president is stupid or if he is challenging some ideology.

The Constitution (the law) states on what grounds impeachment can be brought. Trump's actions were deemed to fall within the grounds for impeachment according to that law. That those actions were performed by him due to his stupidity or any other reason is irrelevant.

I have no problem conceding that Trump is stupid. What I think is that it is certain that he was weak. Essentially he was alone, he had no team. So, he had a lot of people around him which were traitors. And so there was also no team, at least no adequate one, for security of the pro-Trump demos.

You say you have no problem conceding it, but then you ignore that as explanation for what went on. That is why you're seen as a conspiracy nutjob in this matter. Because you ignore the obvious in favour of an explanation that suits your agenda of there being a conspiracy.

Of course, I like it that he does not concede, for political reasons. That the elections in the US have been plausibly faked, this harms the US soft power, which starts regime change operations all over the world where falsification of elections is a standard argument.

All elections everywhere can probably be said to be plausibly faked, everywhere - if by plausible you mean you can come up with a method, however unlikely, by which the results could possibly be rigged. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support that the election result was faked. Try dealing with that rather than the highly unlikely possibilities for which no evidence exists.

And if Trump is not conceding, and the Trump supporters continue to believe in the stolen elections, this makes the claim much more plausible all over the world. The people elsewhere will naturally trust what the people in that country think - if faking elections would be impossible, the local people would not believe such things.

Yeah, as I said, there is no limit to stupidity, and if they wish to believe Trump's unsupported claims rather than the overwhelming evidence of the elections being fair, then so be it.

No. If political statements of the president elected have the intention "to show the seriousness by which people hold the actions", instead of caring for the political consequences, the justification for impeachment simply for being inadequate as a president would apply to Biden as well.

Trump wasn't impeached for being inadequate. So your argument is moot.

Of course, whatever comparisons you make, there will always be a lot of differences. So what?

So what?? So the comparison you tried to make is missing the key factor: involvement of the President! And now you try to hand-wave away the absence of that factor as just being one difference among many?? I'm starting to realise how twisted the thinking of conspiracy nuts really is.

I think it makes no sense to care about what you think about me.

That's good, but I asked if you still think that you are being sensible.

I look at the possible consequences. As every politician should. Is there a danger of civil war? I think there is, however small. And in such a situation it is important to deescalate, with whatever means. Even if this means not to react or to react in a much weaker way to some actions of the other side. What Biden does is escalation. Trump has, with his second speech after he became aware of the storm, deescalated. So the adequate answer would be deescalation too.

The risk of civil war at the moment is so small as to not warrant further consideration in how people react to Trump or those who stormed the Capitol. But again, it suits your agenda to consider it further, and so you do.

 

[Schmelzer]

The Constitution (the law) states on what grounds impeachment can be brought.

I'm not an American lawyer so I leave this aside. To impeach Trump is a political decision, and as a political decision it means escalation.

You say you have no problem conceding it, but then you ignore that as explanation for what went on. That is why you're seen as a conspiracy nutjob in this matter. Because you ignore the obvious in favour of an explanation that suits your agenda of there being a conspiracy.

No. "Conspiracy theory" is a meaningless phrase applicable by all the sheeple to everybody opposing the politically correct, official position. That was the aim of the CIA when it introduced this term against those who doubted the official Kennedy murder story. And this negative meaning is what matters here, why you apply it. Else, conspiracy theories are simply specific theories, no reason to handle them with emotions.

You would better care about your own behavior, given that all you do is to attack me, instead of arguing about the content.

All elections everywhere can probably be said to be plausibly faked, everywhere - if by plausible you mean you can come up with a method, however unlikely, by which the results could possibly be rigged. Unfortunately there is no evidence to support that the election result was faked.

No, you cannot, because "plausible" means something else. About the non-existing facts argue with https://hereistheevidence.com/.

So what?? So the comparison you tried to make is missing the key factor: involvement of the President! And now you try to hand-wave away the absence of that factor as just being one difference among many??

Of course. Thanks for admitting that all what matters is that it gives a chance to fight Trump. That's indeed the key. If the same speech would have been made, say, by some other Rep, nobody would have started anything against him.

That's good, but I asked if you still think that you are being sensible.

Of course. This is the point of making such arguments among those uneducable anyway. Any weak points will be find out, but once nothing is left to object about the content, personal attacks start. Your question is a common example of such a personal attack. So, everything is fine. You have not found something to object against the new arguments I have made in my last posts. This is a strong enough indication that these arguments make sense.

Just to remember a new argument made but not answered here: If Trump has not known that the Capitol police essentially invites storming the Capitol, but believed that the Capitol police will do its job, then in his reasonable opinion his speech, however emotional, was simply insufficient to create any problem which could not be solved elementary with a few tear gas and water cannon shots.

The one how Trump could incite with his speech actions which started 20 min before the end of his speech remains unanswered too.

So, I did not ignore your stupidity theory, but found weak points in it.

The risk of civil war at the moment is so small as to not warrant further consideration in how people react to Trump or those who stormed the Capitol. But again, it suits your agenda to consider it further, and so you do.

I hope that it is really small. My remark remains valid: whoever uses the word "agenda" in his argument has lost the discussion, else he would attack the arguments proposed. Attacking claimed agendas follows once nothing remains to answer them.

 

[Sarkus]

Nonsense. These are professionals. To present all the means necessary on the territory of the Capitol is not provoking. What provokes is direct confrontation.

One can not legislate for people's stupidity. All I'm saying is that it is possible that they thought that a show of force by the police would itself have been a provocation to stupid people in Trump's mob, and actually inflamed further what they sought to avoid. Who knows, though. I'm sure they'll conclude their investigation on the matter at some point.
But it does show, once again, that you only accept the possibilities that suit your agenda, even if more remote.

After the BLM riots? Think about what you write.
...
And it had to be a much lower probability, else not preparing for this would be criminal neglect or so.

And perhaps people will be charged for that, if that is what the investigation leads to. But none of this does your conspiracy theory any good. All you're doing is accepting on one hand that people can be stupid, and that stupid things were done, and on the other you reject stupidity as an explanation.

Not many. How many have really stormed the Capitol, instead of using the fact that the police started to let them in to visit it to take a selfie inside?

The police did not just let them in to "visit it to take a selfie inside". There is footage that suggests police "allowed" the mob past barricades, but that interpretation would be to misrepresent the reality of it. Perhaps you should do a search on Google about it. But I guess you won't, 'cos it won't suit your pet theory.

Feel free to think so. I don't, for example, care much about the question if the demonstrators are stupid....

Because it doesn't suit the conclusion you want to reach. I get it.

The inadequacy of the police is so obvious that there is no base to blame the demonstrators at all.

So committing a crime is not the fault of the perpetrator but the fault of inadequate police presence on the streets. Do you hear yourself??

Most of them were behaving adequately even inside the Capitol, not much different from tourists looking around and taking selfies. That was, with only a minor exaggeration, a storm by invitation of the police. That's why I say that two busloads of antifa provocateurs would be sufficient to do the job.

"Most of..." is irrelevant. It was prohibited, and those inside transgressed. Those who committed actual damage, or acted more aggressively will presumably be punished more severely. None of this, though, is relevant. What matters is that Trump's speech incited his supporters. The crowd, fuelled by the incitement, stormed the Capitol building.
And I really do suggest you look up on Google about whether or not the police invited them in.
As for the provocateurs, you're once again making unsupported claims for which there is no evidence. You are ignoring all the evidence there is of simple police inadequacy (for whatever reason, but stupidity would be my guess), stupidity by a mob as a whole (whether led by one or two with the rest following) that had been stupidly incited by Trump.
And it is for that last part that Trump was impeached.

BTW, given the complete failure of the police, one cannot blame Trump at all. Because, with adequate police behavior, a storm would have been impossible whatever he says. Even if he would have really incited them, say, saying "Go to the Capitol, try to go in, it is your house!!!!!!!11", the result would have been only two water cannons in action and some tear gas to stop that nonsense. Of course, this would have been really an incitement of violence, but even in this case a fair judge would take into account that this incitement to storm the Capitol had no real chance of success, which would transform it into some sort of malediction.

You really don't get it, do you. What sort of criminal system do they have in your neck of the woods?
In the US, and most (if not all) civilised countries, attempting something illegal is itself an illegal act. If you take a shot at someone with a gun with the intention of killing them, even if only a remote chance of doing so, you are guilty of attempted murder. If you attempt a burglary and fail because of all the preventative measures in place, but get caught having tried, you are guilty of attempted burglary etc.
So your argument here is farcical. Truly.
If Trump had said those words then his incitement would have been clear-cut. The intention clear-cut. And he would likely by now be an impeached and convicted ex-President, possibly open to further criminal charges on the matter (inciting violence, perhaps even terrorism against the Constitution). Most of his fellow Republicans would likely be queuing up to convict him. But fortunately for him his incitement wasn't so clear-cut.
The success or otherwise of what the mob tried to do is irrelevant.

 

[Sarkus]

Cont'd...

You use "agenda", that means, you have no longer serious arguments?

It means that you never had any to begin with, rather only those that fit your agenda. When you want to start taking things seriously, perhaps we might get somewhere.

Let's look at the facts. Cui bono we have answered. 100% in favor of the Dems. Zero motivation for Trump to suggest them to storm the Capitol.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. While the result that transpired certainly fell into the lap of the Dems, the storming of the Capitol would very much be 100% for the Reps, as it would have stopped the confirmation of Biden as the next President. But you aren't looking at the intended action but at the result. Yet you don't see how your argument also results in the conclusion that all criminal activity that improves the arrest-rate of police is therefore being orchestrated by the police etc. Who benefits the most from a bungled crime and a subsequent arrest? The police. Therefore, since there is a plausible mechanism by which the police could arrange for people to "commit crimes" that they then solve, the police must therefore arrange all crimes that they solve. Right?
Seriously, your love-affair with cui bono is crippling your critical thinking.

Then, we have to look at the abilities of the sides.
...
Note also that the main point of the cui bono question is to exclude a lot of people, namely all those who had no interest at all in that happening. So you need implausible motivations or extreme stupidity.

And you favour the implausible rather than stupidity (which certainly does not need to be extreme). Just as all conspiracy theorists tend to do.

As if repeating a claim without arguments which I have explicitly already rejected, with arguments, would be an argument.

And your argument simply reinforces that that is what you are doing. You have started with an end-point you want to achieve, and have tried to line up all the remote possibilities that would lead to it happening. I.e. because the storming of the Capitol led to Trump's impeachment, you are trying to argue that the storming of the Capitol happened because they wanted Trump impeached. That you have arguments for even considering all the remote possibilities doesn't change this overall fallacy that you are committing. You are ignoring the far more likely that the outcome of Trump's impeachment simply fell into the lap of the Dems. No orchestration necessary, just luck and stupidity.

No, no, no again. I have clarified that the story of one side is a reasonable and self-consistent story. The other side had a motive to do this, had the ability to do this, and that side claims to have some evidence.

Yes, you have put together a string of remote possibilities that need to be in place in order for the theory to be true. Yet you have no evidence, and you are promoting it as fact over the far more obvious. That is what conspiracy theorists do. That is what you are doing.

And I have clarified that the story of the other side - Trump intentionally inciting the people to storm the Capitol - is nonsensical.

Noone is saying that he intentionally incited the crowd to storm the Capitol. Where has anyone said that? Certainly he wasn't impeached for that. He was impeached for inciting a crowd with words that "encouraged–and foreseeably resulted in–lawless action".

You present a third story, completely stupidity everywhere. Trump so stupid that he does not recognize that his emotional speech may cause such things which he did not intent, the demonstrators so stupid to storm the Capitol, the police so stupid that it did not even prepare a little bit, even that this is the only job they have. And Biden so stupid to escalate by naming them terrorists and to start impeachments and so on.

Well, the police did prepare a bit - hence the barriers etc. But they were underprerpared for sure. I only offer stupidity by their higher-ups for that, but there may well be some nefarious reason that comes out of the investigation. But certainly stupidity is a strong possibility.
And Biden didn't start the impeachment process. I'm not sure he would have had anything to do with it.
But otherwise, yes. Stupidity is possible in all those. And far easier to come by.

Here I have found a weak point, namely that if Trump had no knowledge about the complete incompetence or criminal neglect of the Capitol police, he was unable to foresee that his speech, however emotional, would incite more than what could be solved by two loads of water canons.

Hardly a weak point as it is irrelevant. Trump wouldn't need to foresee that his speech would incite the crowd. It could have been entirely unintentional. The "foreseeably" in the charge is presumably one of the things the judges in the case will have to assess.
Certainly if all that happened was a minor scuffle outside then there would be less emotion to impeach a President who is leaving in a few days anyway.
But then your own pet theory has the weakness that the Dems had little idea what Trump's speech would contain, and how inciting it would be. So now you're going to have to invent some other "plausible" scenario whereby his speech was either leaked beforehand to the Dems, or even written by a Dem speech-writer acting as a mole in the White House! Otherwise, how would the Dems have known to have so few police on the doorstep of the Capitol and that Trump would incite his followers etc.

First, it is not my theory, but the theory accepted as almost obvious by a majority of sources outside Western propaganda (roughly 2/3, the remaining are closer to your stupidity theory).

Ah, you mean accepted as almost obvious in places where "free press" is a bit of mystery, and where the agenda of the government dictates the interpretation?

Then, I have no ability and no intention to prove something,...

You have certainly displayed a lack of ability to even check the facts.

...but I can compare the plausibility of the different stories by evaluating their weak points. The result is that the official version is complete nonsense, that your stupidity version has weak points, but is not completely implausible, and that the version with provocation is simply the most plausible one.

Your idea of "evaluating" is, alas, simply to see how well it fits your agenda.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not an American lawyer so I leave this aside. To impeach Trump is a political decision, and as a political decision it means escalation.

Again with the excuses for not supporting your words.
Impeachment is of course political, given that it involves political figures, but it is also a legal matter. Part of the law.
You argued: "In a state of law, the law should matter, not if you think the president is stupid or if he is challenging some ideology." That is precisely what is being done here: the law matters, and whether the President has broken that law.

No. "Conspiracy theory" is a meaningless phrase applicable by all the sheeple to everybody opposing the politically correct, official position. That was the aim of the CIA when it introduced this term against those who doubted the official Kennedy murder story. And this negative meaning is what matters here, why you apply it. Else, conspiracy theories are simply specific theories, no reason to handle them with emotions.

The term is valid here: you are promoting a theory that requires conspiracy - between the Dems, the Police, antifa etc - to eject a sitting President. That is a conspiracy. What you are promoting is thus a conspiracy theory. Undeniably.

You would better care about your own behavior, given that all you do is to attack me, instead of arguing about the content.

I have argued the content, and you simply continue to ignore it in favour of your personal pet theory. And since your style of argument rather closely follows the flaws found in conspiracy theorists (ignoring stupidity, the logical fallacy etc) it is increasingly simpler to just refer to you as one.

No, you cannot, because "plausible" means something else.

Yes, it means akin "reasonable" or "probable" - none of which you have actually managed to attribute to your own theory, beyond your own assessment of those terms, that is. Which speaks to judgement on the matter.

About the non-existing facts argue with https://hereistheevidence.com/.

You're the one presenting them, so you, for once, do the research and filter through those lists and identify the actual fact rather than the hearsay, anecdotes, wishful thinking, unsupported claims etc.
When you do that, when you have something substantial to support your claim, maybe you'll be taken seriously. Until then, though.

Of course. Thanks for admitting that all what matters is that it gives a chance to fight Trump. That's indeed the key.

That's not what I've said matters at all, so please don't lie. You simply put up a false comparison. I pulled you up on it. You said they should treat the Capitol invasion like a demonstration that was peaceful and that wasn't incited by the President... which bears minimal resemblance to the scenario you're trying to compare it to.

If the same speech would have been made, say, by some other Rep, nobody would have started anything against him.

They would have probably been rebuked. But Presidents should be, and are, held to a higher standard, because they hold far higher office.

Of course. This is the point of making such arguments among those uneducable anyway. Any weak points will be find out, but once nothing is left to object about the content, personal attacks start. Your question is a common example of such a personal attack. So, everything is fine. You have not found something to object against the new arguments I have made in my last posts. This is a strong enough indication that these arguments make sense.

They have always made sense as being a remote possibility, as all theories generally are until proven false. The issue is not one of whether they make sense but just how probable you think they are. It is in your promoting them as the most likely where your arguments fall, because you underestimate stupidity, and fail to see the result of impeachment as anything other than something falling into the lap of the Dems. You see it as the intention of the actions. I have pointed these things out to you repeatedly, and your only counters are to reconfirm that these are what you are doing.

Just to remember a new argument made but not answered here: If Trump has not known that the Capitol police essentially invites storming the Capitol, but believed that the Capitol police will do its job, then in his reasonable opinion his speech, however emotional, was simply insufficient to create any problem which could not be solved elementary with a few tear gas and water cannon shots.

Once again, despite being told repeatedly, you fail to accept that the ultimate success or otherwise of the action upon the Capitol is irrelevant to whether Trump encouraged the crowd to "forseeably... illegal action". The Police being there to stop that illegal action is irrelevant to that charge.

The one how Trump could incite with his speech actions which started 20 min before the end of his speech remains unanswered too.

No, it doesn't. Democrats claim his incitement began just 3 minutes into his speech, when he started repeating the unsupported accusations of a stolen election. It is also well documented that many from his crowd began to leave during his speech, possibly already incited, to head to the Capitol.
Sure, there was already a crowd at the Capitol, and they swelled in number with those coming from his speech, even while his speech was going on. There were some scuffles, reportedly, before Trump had finished, but the breaking through the barriers, and into the building itself, were after the end of his speech apparently.

So, I did not ignore your stupidity theory, but found weak points in it.

There are no weak points. The entire mess can be explained adequately through stupidity. All of it. Stupidity all round. You just don't like the theory, because it doesn't suit your agenda.
Further, once you think you have found "weak points" you then proceed to throw out the theory wholesale. Like cutting off an arm because there is a slight bruise. Instead you favour what you think is the most rock solid theory despite almost every aspect being highly unlikely, and requiring a conspiracy among a large number of people, all for which there is zero evidence, and all to achieve an aim that isn't really going to make a huge difference (President already outgoing with no guarantee of seeking, or being able to seek, nomination in 4 years).
You see, you have focused on cui bono without really assessing how significant the benefit is. Or if you have it is through blinkered goggles.
And you continue to see the conclusion (impeachment) as the initial intention rather than just something that fell out of what transpired. And then you continue to ignore stupidity. Yes, you say you have assessed and found weakness, but then ignore it again rather than building the idea into your theory. All it takes is either Trump to be stupid, or the police to be stupid, or the mob, and your theory falls flat on its face. Your theory requires the perfect storm of every facet to be true, no matter how unlikely each is, and it falls over when just one isn't true. Yet you don't look for that truth. You expect others to prove you wrong.
All of these are traits of conspiracy theorists. All are flawed.

Is your theory possible? Yes. Remotely.
Is your theory plausible? Only by those who really want to believe it and are incapable of accepting the more likely alternatives.

I hope that it is really small. My remark remains valid: whoever uses the word "agenda" in his argument has lost the discussion, else he would attack the arguments proposed. Attacking claimed agendas follows once nothing remains to answer them.

Nonsense. If you had been paying attention then you would have realised that any identification of, or comment toward, your agenda has been merely an aside to the arguments repeatedly made. It simply speaks to the growing frustration I have that you simply seem incapable of addressing this matter in anything other than a blinkered and biased manner, where your views of what is "plausible" etc, are anathema to sensible discourse.
But, hey, if you want to claim that as a victory, you go for it, champ!

 

[iceaura]

If the same speech would have been made, say, by some other Rep, nobody would have started anything against him.

.
If it instigated, organized, aided in any way, or even timed, an organized assault on Congress like that one, they would have been arrested and jailed.
They might be yet. Even the worm-spined Dem establishment is making noises about prosecution.

Funny but irrelevant. Your example are clearly absurd because cui bono is only a first question. And obviously there should be also the ability to do this. I have not ignored this, and explained how two busloads of provocateurs are sufficient.

No such busloads ever existed. Their theoretical and quite dubious "sufficiency" in some completely different circumstances (such as a planet on which the Republican Party thug squads were the victims of provocation instead of the perpetrators) is completely irrelevant.

Funny but irrelevant. Your example are clearly absurd because cui bono is only a first question.

That first question was answered - Trump and his familia.

So: is it a good question or not? The answer was "Trump", remember - keep that in mind when you "argue".
- - - -

But this is what would be necessary. Or are some unintentional side effects sufficient for an impeachment?

Yes. Negligence itself is impeachable - Trump swore a legally binding oath not to betray his country in pursuit of personal advantage, and employ his full diligence in all such matters.

Of course, claims of evidence will be banned from the social media and outside the social media they have no chance at all.

Note the propagandist's focus on "claims", rather than evidence itself.
Note your propagandist's pivot on this thread - almost immediately - from claiming that claims of evidence are banned from social media to posting a link to a large collection of such claims on social media. That would have been much more difficult a pivot had you been dealing with evidence rather than claims.
Meanwhile: Claims of evidence, without the evidence, are the stock in trade of your source - you believe the ones you post, I think, but no informed person does.

About the non-existing facts argue with

You post that stupid shit, you are responsible for it here. The "argument" here ( in my case just mockery and repeated contradiction) is with you and your parrot habit.

Claims of evidence, such as your parroting (even linking) from the US fascist media feed, are of course not themselves the evidence. You do at least recognize that ?

(As far as the "evidence" you claimed to for your link but refuse to defend or justify in any way (wisely, but revealingly): most of those allegations are of State crimes. The law enforcement agencies and State governments and even specific judges involved are mostly - large majority - Trump supporters, Republican Party loyalists, Republican appointees (many directly Trump - far more than normal for a President), Trump-staffed Federal agencies (again, abnormally political etc). So your link there is for the most part accusing Trump, his supporters and minions, his appointed judges, and his overtly coordinated Republican Party allies, of large scale and ubiquitous failure to enforce the law.

That would be grounds for impeachment.

You linked to a compendium of claims of evidence for impeachable offenses by Trump, crimes by Republican governors and other State officials, and so forth ).

 

[iceaura]

The one how Trump could incite with his speech actions which started 20 min before the end of his speech remains unanswered too.

Singling out that one, for its revealing exposure of the source of the parrot feed.

Trump had been speaking and posting and re-tweeting about that particular riot for weeks. He'd been organizing violent rallies, threatening people with violent mobs, and using the disorder of his rallies etc as cover, for his entire Presidency (and campaign, in 2016 and 2020 both). You didn't know that?

Of course that was part of his standard Republican schtick - that kind of threat goes back decades in the Republican Party. Remember all those "We come unarmed - this time" rally signs when Congress was Republican and the President was the target of the threats? But standard or not, it was a genuine threat, and everyone in the US knew that.

 

[Quantum Quack]

To impeach Trump is a political decision

Highly debatable... imo
To impeach Trump is an obligation required by the top legal document in the USA.
Trump chose to attempt to overturn, using illegal means a constitutionally valid election by inciting his supporters to violence against the nations law makers.
I see it as a situation that transcends politics.
To honor the constitution is an intrinsic part of any law makers oath of office. Politics is irrelevant.
To decide not to impeach Trump, however, would be a very political decision and a breach of duty to honor the constitution.

Essentially, if Congress failed to launch an impeachment trial of Trump they would be derelict in their duty to honor the constitution.

To say that it was a purely political decision is just revealing how little you understand about a constitutional republic...