Philosoraptor

It's too quiet.

He did incite violence and tried to enact martial law.

Trump’s two key advisors, Flynn and Powell, who pushed the narrative onto Trump that there was election fraud tried to talk Trump into enacting Martial Law. They were the only two advisors who still believed the election fraud narrative would work (and Giuliani).

Pretty much every advisor implored him not to and possibly lied to him that there were other ways to overturn the election without resorting to drastic measures. I very much doubt anyone threatened to resign, since at that point Trump didn’t seem to care who was advising him as long as they told him what he wanted to hear.

I’m guessing his handlers lied to him and said Pence would denounce the election results when the Senate convened in January 6th. Then when he was bait and switched the day or two before, he riled people up at his pathetic pity party of a rally and turned them against Pence.

Notice that he finally let it slip that another administration, besides his own, would take over after January 6th. He really thought Pence would dismiss the election results in the days leading up to the Senate confirmation but he was manipulated into abandoning that fantasy during the insurrection. He had to in order to keep the peace.

Basically, he was duped into not taking dictatorial steps to stay in power then guilt tripped into stepping down without actually having to admit defeat so that he could hopefully salvage his reputation as a “winner” and run again in 2024.

It’s really quite pathetic really.

You have too much time on your hands. No one is going to read this. Wall, meet head. Head, meet wall. Again. And again. And again...

I congratulate you on thinking that you know stuff. Really, you don't know shit, just like the rest of us idiots. Welcome to the club, pal.

Maybe only one of us doesn't know shit.

True, I know somethings and I'm very happy to be corrected.

I welcome you to try.

Claiming you know things means you believe you have reliable sources. Where are they, my friend?

I’m not interested in nitpicking current events that presumably neither you or I have even so much as second hand experience of.

Firsthand experiences alone do not mean things didn’t happen. We do not need to have been in the Capitol to see when it was attacked to know that it was. We do not need to have been to the border to see that refugees have been locked up. We do not need to have been to New York to see it was attacked on September eleventh.

Most of the news is secondhand and it would be foolish to dismiss them based solely on that regard.

However, I will not refuse your request but I’ll make you a deal. Can you counter my argument without directly dismissing the sources? I’ll even give you a clue. It is possible. If your only counter is that you can’t trust: CNN, New York Times, MSM, etc. then you lose.

Deal?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/administration/531032-trump-pushes-back-on-martial-law-reports-fake-news%3Famp

https://www.axios.com/trump-officials-alarmed-overturn-election-results-a844d1d2-acb2-47a9-87ce-ac579458b1ea.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/19/us/politics/trump-sidney-powell-voter-fraud.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532635-trump-at-georgia-rally-says-he-hopes-pence-comes-through-for-us%3Famp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/mike-pence-trump.amp.html

Your righteousness saddens me; I feel sad for you. If you want to get people on your team, you need to be on theirs first.

Good luck, my friend.

You don't have to be on my "team" to see basic facts.

Thanks for playing.

Thanks for being an excellent example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

The best way, I think, to combat those truly suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect is to actually engage with them rather than congratulate them on their performance. Of the two of us, only one is willing to have their beliefs challenged which means that you might very well be an example of the Dunning Kruger effect because you can’t handle making a clear and obvious argument.

I'm sorry for the Dunning Kruger effect comment; that was rude.

Dunning Kruger aside, the context from within which you frame your argument is a construct, is it not? You're so attached that you've fought tooth and nail to conform and now you're trying to force others to conform, too. You're doing this for fear of losing your construct-based identity and having to endure the horrible pain of the identity crisis that will inevitably follow.

Plus, I haven't even tried to debate you on anything. Like I said, I'm not really interested. But if you want to convince me that what you're trying to convince me of is actually important, and that I should care at all, that would be one open door here for a spirited debate. Your move, my friend.

My turn to apologize, then. I can understand the need to withdraw from these tiresome arguments online as they often seem pointless and fruitless but I have yet to reach the point where I think I’m better off not engaging. I wouldn’t so sharply label myself as wanting others to conform to my beliefs otherwise I wouldn’t have invited you to try to challenge mine.

My identity isn’t based on my politics. I would not label myself as a conservative or a liberal as both sides of that coin have found me particularly irksome. Nor would I be so bold as to even label myself a moderate or an independent. I would say, if I were pressed I lean more conservative than moderate but only in the sense of I do me and I don’t dictate what others do.

I can see why people challenging their ideas can be easily confused with that but honestly, I don’t think people are that intellectually honest with others, let alone themselves. It seems like everyone is afraid and wants to fight tooth and nail for themselves without any consideration for the other. And I get that.

I think anyone who has such strong convictions is actually more dangerous because they’re no longer open to any debate but would rather ridicule than engage. Or worse. And if I can keep the conversation going rather than let it devolve into a pissing match, then I call it a win.

Even if that other person would rather hide than engage. Either way, thank you for at least standing by your convictions without resorting to childish insults.

Maybe next time you’ll be open to engage.

I look forward to it.