Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Bandaged Trump Gets Rapturous Welcome Two Days After Assassination Attempt
https:/
Has this attempt on his life secured the election for him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Untitled, if I've understood Ellipsis correctly Trump didn't need to 'violently attempt to seize power'. All he needed to do to retain power was refuse to sign for Biden. And who are 'his men' who committed such outrages? Are they in prison? Boys' Own or what?! Watch your pearls. You'll break them.
OG, 16.04. You know the answer to that. Lot fathered the children of both his daughters. So much for sandyRoe's Biblical moralising.
Note this article from 6 January 2021 before the chaos started. This is why the mob chanted "Hang Mike Pence" - because Pence intended to, and finally did, "formally announce Mr Biden as the next US president".
https:/
What does President Trump want?
In the US, electors - based on the results in each state - officially decide who is to be the next president.
Congress is meeting to count the electoral votes and confirm the nomination of president-elect Biden.
This process usually takes place without controversy, but the president and his supporters are continuing to dispute the election results, citing unfounded claims of fraud.
Once the electoral votes are counted, it will be up to Mr Pence to formally announce Mr Biden as the next US president.
Mr Trump wants the vice-president to step in and reject the results of the election, declaring the vote fraudulent.
The new running mate to Trump, JD Vance, "told ABC News in February that he would not have certified the 2020 election on Jan. 6 had he been vice president instead of Mike Pence." More details here: https:/
And that's why the next couple of US presidential elections are going to be interesting, in terms of handing the reins of supreme executive power to the opposition ...
you have not understood ellipsis correctly naomi. ellipsis is talking about certification of the electoral college results which happens in congress (i forget which chamber) following a US election. the process is overseen by the vice president who at the time was mike pence.
this is simply a formality in most cases. trump's men however attacked congress while the certification was happening in order to prevent power from legally being transferred from one president to another--a very badly organised attempt at a putsch. they also called for mike pence to be hanged for his involvement in the proceedings. trump watched all of this happen and did nothing to discourage this until very late in the day when it was clear the attack had already failed and he needed to cover his backside. if the putsch had succeeded then he would simply have remained in office illegally.
"And who are 'his men' who committed such outrages? Are they in prison?"
the ones who tried to kidnap gretchen whitmer are yes. so is the one who attacked nancy pelosi (trump made fun of this when it happened by the way... he did not denounce the violence)
i am aware of course that i made some foolish and distasteful statements at the weekend which i regret and retracted on the other thread after a discussion with newjudge. i do however wish to observe that mr trump has no problem with political violence and has encouraged it against his opponents. his men and women have furthermore actually carried it out several times. so i find the sudden abhorrence to political violence on the part of his supporters to be extremely one-sided and hypocritical because they're quite happy to use it themselves.
Sinead,
Rioters were charged with many things including assault, weapon offences, theft, making threats, seditious conspiracy. Sounds closer to my interpretation than yours. What freedoms did they think were under threat?
YMB, yes, some were convicted of carrying firearms. Other weapons included stun guns, knives, batons, chemical sprays, baseball bats.
Seems to me you're trying to defend the indefensible.
According to ellipsis at 14.19 it's a bit more than a formality, untitled. Without it Biden could, he says, have clung to power. I've never heard of that which is why I questioned it - but that's what he said. Perhaps you've misunderstood him. Additionally, I don't think anyone here needs a history lesson - skewed or otherwise.
Sinead,
OK, they weren't (maybe it's harder to get a conviction for that, I don't know) but doesn't seditious conspiracy imply an attempt to overthrow the rightful government? Happy for you to explain the difference.
I'll ask you again, what freedoms did these insurrectionists - sorry, seditious conspirators - feel were under threat?
JD, I think the protestors were there for 3 main reasons- 1) The vast majority supported Trump and wished to show that. 2) Some believed that their democratic vote had been ignored and that the election was fraudulent. 3) Some (a violent minority) wished to start a civil war. As I mentioned, all attempts by Biden and his cohorts to charge a single one of them with insurrection has failed. Some were rightly convicted of violent offences. But attempts to smear all the protestors with the same brush because of the actions of a minority has failed.
That's still not explaining what freedoms were supposedly under threat. As far as I'm aware, mass violent seditious conspiracy's not happened after any previous US election. Still not aware of how that differs from insurrection. Do you know? They're commonly referred to as insurrectionists by the media.
And how about Trump trying to pressurise the Georgia Secretary of State to falsify votes? Should that not disqualify him from ever holding office again?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.