Trump 2024 ???

[jamil]

Hold on there…I didn’t say the instigators (even any potential agent provocateurs) should not be held accountable for their role in motivating the crowd…I said the crowd shouldn’t have fallen for the instigator’s tactics.

I have no idea what a “glowie” is either...but that’s nothing new, INGO lingo often escapes me, lol.

There's a lot you didn't say. Like, you didn't connect any dots. You just said it's self evident as if it's instinctive to believe all Trump has to do is identify a target and they just know what to do. You just claimed that J6 was most obvious, when I don't see anything obvious about it. What I heard was Trump telling people to protest peacefully.

That’s fair, I don’t expect you to take my word for anything.

Personally, I think it’s self-evident that a some percentage of Trump’s supporters would act against Trump’s accusers whether or not he overtly orders them to. We have seen countless examples thus far, with Jan6 being the most obvious…and most worrisome…example.

What is most obvious about it? Given this, why should I think that this is only an issue of instinct driven by world view? And I suppose you could say the same thing to me, and fair enough. But either way, your claim is still short on receipts.

 

[jamil]

When you lay snares, I ain't gonna step right in them. Already seen responsible equated to responsible for inciting violence or criminally responsible.

Ask a vague question get a vague answer.

Let's see if you dance too.

Same question

If members of Trump's team do something is Trump responsible?

I'll answer, FWIW. I'd say Trump is responsible to the extent that he directed them to do it.

 

[foszoe]

Remind me of the violence Trump influenced and or the violence his supporters did.

I used to love to dance , but disco died.

Yet you just danced around my question. Nice steps

 

[foszoe]

I'll answer, FWIW. I'd say Trump is responsible to the extent that he directed them to do it.

Ballroom quality right there!

Whatever happened to the buck stops here? I miss that mentality

 

[Ziggidy]

Yet you just danced around my question. Nice steps

It’s called “The Hustle”

 

[foszoe]

 

[jamil]

The things I am claiming are well-documented.

Trump’s followers built a gallows and chanted “hang Mike pence” before crossing a police line and going in after him.

Allegedly.

Trump never asked them to do that, but when he was told about it in the White House he replied that maybe that’s what pence deserved.

An angry mob does what angry mobs do, especially when agent provocateurs egg them on, which there is also plenty of evidence for. And I'm taking your word for what Trump said, but if that's true, I think it is far better evidence that Trump is a petulant child, angry that he was "betrayed", than that he set things in motion purposefully, knowing that some people in the crowd would do what he wanted done. But why shouldn't I think that you believe this instinctively driven by your worldview? What facts makes what you believe truer?

I gather that you don‘t see Trump’s followers as an inherently intimidating factor when dealing with the witnesses in his criminal litigation…but the courts do, and I’m just trying to provide some insight into the possible reasons why. you are free to reject them, but c’mon man, there’s more to it than just my personal bias.

You must be getting tired, that’s just lazy by your usual standards, lol!

I think my standards are just fine. You still haven't connected any dots, so without better facts, I'd rather not intuit that what you believe must be so. I suspect that in your mind there's a clear connection. I'm not in your mind. I don't see a factual reason to believe it's anything more than Trump acting childishly.

I do think that Trump's followers are inherently intimidating, though, to people who have the instinct to believe Trump is trying to direct his fiercely loyal followers to do harm on his behalf. I'm not saying that there aren't crazy Trumpers who would do it. I think it's crazy to claim without the missing pieces that Trump is intentionally pointing out targets.

 

[jamil]

View attachment 293366

That's a great definition. I will totally adopt that term into my own use. But expand on it beyond feds to imply other things so obviously conspicuous.

 

[jamil]

Ballroom quality right there!

Whatever happened to the buck stops here? I miss that mentality

Eh. I don't know that I've ever really bought into that. It's from an archaic management style. It's still true in a "**** rolls downhill, hierarchical" sense. So here's a story.

A stock trading company has proprietary software that helps them execute trades. In their software they had constants that meant certain things. It's like switches that have a label. Of course, it's bad practice to reuse labels such that the meaning for an established label changes. A staff software engineer decided to reuse an old constant (label) for a different purpose. He did not know that some legacy code still used the same label for the old purpose.

Long story shorter, this mistake executed many unintended trades and the company lost $millions. Was the CEO to blame? Not really. But **** rolls downhill. Actually the **** rolled everywhere because the company went bankrupt. They never recovered.

You could try to make the case that the CEO hired the CTO, who hired the director of engineering for that department, who hired the manager of software development for the team the SE was on. I guess the buck could stop at the CEO. But living in the real world, the SE ****ed up. And probably QA ****ed up. Maybe you could go as high as director of engineering. Clearly they didn't have a process in place that would prevent it. Maybe they didn't do code reviews. But above director, it gets really cloudy up there. They don't know what the **** is going on at the individual contributor level.

 

[jamil]

What-aboutisms...

The thing about our criminal justice system is when the accused tries to intimidate or influence... that's a different thing altogether... especially a witness before a grand jury.

It depends on "what about" whether it's a valid argument or not. If you're using it to excuse the behavior of your own, then you end up just excusing the behavior for all. If you're using it to point out hypocrisy, that's fine and all. But then you have to admit that the behavior is either wrong for both, or right for both.

Also, here's something interesting about pointing out Kamalalaladingdong's instigation. I mean that's an actual fact. She did those things. Was it intentionally to instigate violent riots? I dunno. I think offering to bail people out of jail who will get arrested at a future time, for doing violence, makes that very obvious. It was intentional. She knew it would result in people getting arrested for being violent. And she was willing to pay for that violence.

So where is such quality of evidence proving Trump intended the violent part of J6? Did he offer to bail anyone out for this future act?

 

[foszoe]

Eh. I don't know that I've ever really bought into that. It's from an archaic management style. It's still true in a "**** rolls downhill, hierarchical" sense. So here's a story.

A stock trading company has proprietary software that helps them execute trades. In their software they had constants that meant certain things. It's like switches that have a label. Of course, it's bad practice to reuse labels such that the meaning for an established label changes. A staff software engineer decided to reuse an old constant (label) for a different purpose. He did not know that some legacy code still used the same label for the old purpose.

Long story shorter, this mistake executed many unintended trades and the company lost $millions. Was the CEO to blame? Not really. But **** rolls downhill. Actually the **** rolled everywhere because the company went bankrupt. They never recovered.

You could try to make the case that the CEO hired the CTO, who hired the director of engineering for that department, who hired the manager of software development for the team the SE was on. I guess the buck could stop at the CEO. But living in the real world, the SE ****ed up. And probably QA ****ed up. Maybe you could go as high as director of engineering. Clearly they didn't have a process in place that would prevent it. Maybe they didn't do code reviews. But above director, it gets really cloudy up there.

I believe that there is a reasonable expectation that with knowledge comes responsibility. Do I expect a Leader to know every decision made and all of its ramifications from underlings? No. But I do expect him to know more than financial statements.

Even without knowledge there is still responsibility or there would be no need for forgiveness.

IF I know that there is a possibility something could turn violent when should I take action?

How often do I read on INGO of a person doing a violent act and everyone around the perpetrator exclaims "I had no idea this person was capable of that"? "He was just beginning to turn his life around!" etc.

Then more of the story comes out and people are like, "How could they have been so blind?" How could they not have known this was going to go badly?"

The bad leader will be the one that recognizes the pieces are all coming together for a negative outcome and does nothing or waits until the last second to try and avert it

The good leader recognizes and nips it in the bud.

The ignorant leader does nothing.

 

[Ziggidy]

The bad leader will be the one that recognizes the pieces are all coming together for a negative outcome and does nothing.

Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Pence, Todd….and so many more. That’s what I think about when I read that statement.

Maybe they do nothing because it’s part of the agenda?

 

[jamil]

ETA. Thought I quoted @foszoe . Apparently not.

The CEO of that trading firm would not have had any knowledge of what was transpiring in software development. He would just know that they’re working on a feature that the CTO relayed, at most. Unless that CEO fostered a culture of negligence, he has no reason to suspect the company was about to go broke as soon as the code went live.

But really we’re not just talking about negligence. And I’m much more okay with holding the top boss accountable for negligence shirt of any other facts than I am with malicious intent. You want to say that Trump should have know things would get violent and that simply telling people to protest peacefully, don’t be violent, we’re not the violent ones, which is essentially what he said, is not enough. Alright.

I have no problem saying that the facts could support Trump was negligent. It would not be the first time. But certainly not criminally so without better facts. What is being claimed is malicious intent, which is short of supporting facts, unless you’re relying purely on instincts.

I think the answer best supported by the facts, the ignorant leader does nothing.

 

[foszoe]

Obama, Biden, Hillary, Pelosi, Pence, Todd….and so many more. That’s what I think about when I read that statement.

Maybe they do nothing because it’s part of the agenda?

When I see the term "agenda", it conjures up "conspiracy". I mean these people either are brilliant enough to maintain a conspiracy or that are ignorant and no way capable of maintaining a conspiracy.

I tend to think if there is a "grand conspiracy", it is succeeding in spite of politicians not because of them.

 

[foszoe]

But certainly not criminally so without better facts. What is being claimed is malicious intent, which is short of supporting facts, unless you’re relying purely on instincts.

I think the answer best supported by the facts, the ignorant leader does nothing.

That's why I specifically spelled out Trump is not criminally responsible as far as I am concerned when I was waltzing earlier!

 

[Ziggidy]

When I see the term "agenda", it conjures up "conspiracy". I mean these people either are brilliant enough to maintain a conspiracy or that are ignorant and no way capable of maintaining a conspiracy.

I tend to think if there is a "grand conspiracy", it is succeeding in spite of politicians not because of them.

Is it an agenda, conspiracy or grand conspiracy that we are experiencing a bloodless coup?

 

[jamil]

Yup... does Trump want to be held without bail or held in comtempt? Or does he think he's immune to the normal rules. Or is it the one note martyr tune?

Why would he be held without bail? Why would he be held in contempt? He said the guy shouldn't be testifying. Is that a crime? Apparently it's a dog whistle to some people. I didn't hear it. But then I'm not a fiercely loyal Trumper, or a rabidly anti-Trump zealot. You heard it though. It remains to be seen if any fiercely loyal Trumpers heard it and go take the guy out. Maybe alternate reality has to be turned up to 11 to hear it.

 

[jamil]

That's why I specifically spelled out Trump is not criminally responsible as far as I am concerned when I was waltzing earlier!

I don't know how to dance. I might as well have 3 club feet. I didn't even notice you were waltzing. All I know about waltzing is that a waltz is usually in 3/4 time.

 

[Route 45]

Trump's proposed Atlanta court date on Super Tuesday eve 'planned and coordinated': Ex-attorney general

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis took criticism over her proposal of a court commencement date that falls one day prior to Super Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Ziggidy]

Trump's proposed Atlanta court date on Super Tuesday eve 'planned and coordinated': Ex-attorney general

Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis took criticism over her proposal of a court commencement date that falls one day prior to Super Tuesday.

www.foxnews.com

I wonder if this is an agenda, conspiracy or grand conspiracy?