^^ Corporate CEO virtue signalling is probably the most annoying phenomenon occurring on the planet right now. These guys make hundreds or even thousands of times more than their average workers but think they can appease the political left by pretending to have some sort of concern about voter laws. They're all total phonies.

Edited April 13, 20214 yr by Ram23

I think white nationalists extending control over the GOP and trying to undermine democracy under the guise of "stopping fraud" when no analysis of our electoral system has found any significant fraud is more annoying.

1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

^^ Corporate CEO virtue signalling is probably the most annoying phenomenon occurring on the planet right now. These guys make hundreds or even thousands of times more than their average workers but think they can appease the political left by pretending to have some sort of concern about voter laws. They're all total phonies.

 

It's not so much about catering to the left, but about calculating what they believe helps their business and their reputation. It's simply business. 

Catering to everyone but the Far Right.

2 hours ago, surfohio said:

 

It's not so much about catering to the left, but about calculating what they believe helps their business and their reputation. It's simply business. 

Exactly, the GOP has become a threat to the status quo.  You saw this under Trump as they had to have an ear on the news constantly as he was a threat to disrupt the entire market with a single tweet at any time.  They just want the GOP to drop their obsession with nationalism/Trumpism and get back to the Bush years.  It's simply a sound business decision, not "catering to the left"

18 hours ago, Ram23 said:

^^ Corporate CEO virtue signalling is probably the most annoying phenomenon occurring on the planet right now. These guys make hundreds or even thousands of times more than their average workers but think they can appease the political left by pretending to have some sort of concern about voter laws. They're all total phonies.

 

Do you agree with the fascistic sentiment from Vance or no?  Please cite the law that allows you (or Vance, or anyone else in government) to punish corporations they don't like.

7 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Do you agree with the fascistic sentiment from Vance or no?  Please cite the law that allows you (or Vance, or anyone else in government) to punish corporations they don't like.

Wow, I have never thought i would have seen the day where we have the liberal elite defending large corporations and corporate sentiment. Of course, when they surrender to the army of wokeness then corporations are the good guys and are welcomed members of the *progressive* team.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Wow, I have never thought i would have seen the day where we have the liberal elite defending large corporations and corporate sentiment. Of course, when they surrender to the army of wokeness then corporations are the good guys and are welcomed members of the *progressive* team.

My hometown of Parma, Ohio has entered the chat. Yikes.

Edited April 14, 20214 yr by ytown2ctown

14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Wow, I have never thought i would have seen the day where we have the liberal elite defending large corporations and corporate sentiment. Of course, when they surrender to the army of wokeness then corporations are the good guys and are welcomed members of the *progressive* team.

 

You seem to have a reading problem.  Nowhere am I defending large corporations.  I am asking for a citation where elected government officials can raise taxes on corporations they don't like.

 

Or is my understanding now that conservatives & Vance want to go back to a 35% corporate tax rate?  Sign me up for that, sure.

Just now, DarkandStormy said:

You seem to have a reading problem.  Nowhere am I defending large corporations.  I am asking for a citation where elected government officials can raise taxes on corporations they don't like.

If you could read between the lines and understand the meaning of what he is saying, he is essentially saying that if corporations want to get in bed with the woke crowd, then the Republicans wont stand up for them when the Dems come for their money and profits.  Government officials can raise taxes on corporations with a vote by Congress. You should know this as Dems have been pushing this for decadees now.  

You cant take a literal interpretation on everything. Vance is only saying that if corporations are not going to advocate against the interest of the average American, then why should he support them when they come to him for help. There really is no citation needed there. 

40 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

If you could read between the lines and understand the meaning of what he is saying, he is essentially saying that if corporations want to get in bed with the woke crowd, then the Republicans wont stand up for them when the Dems come for their money and profits.  Government officials can raise taxes on corporations with a vote by Congress. You should know this as Dems have been pushing this for decadees now.  

You cant take a literal interpretation on everything. Vance is only saying that if corporations are not going to advocate against the interest of the average American, then why should he support them when they come to him for help. There really is no citation needed there. 

 

Ah, yes, J.D. Vance, venture capitalist...surely knows what's "in the interest of the average American."

 

Which corporations are you/Vance referring to? Just the ones who voice an opinion publicly?  Going to be a lot of tap dancing around which corporations get Republican "support" and which ones don't.  And don't forget, Vance specifically cited raising their taxes and "doing whatever else is necessary."  

 

 

 

And in the follow up tweet, he's specifically saying "cut the taxes" of companies that are doing the things he likes while wanting to raise the taxes on businesses that are doing things he doesn't like.

 

Please show me the tax code that would allow for this thing to happen.  I like learning.  Which code section should I be reading?

Edited April 14, 20214 yr by DarkandStormy

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Wow, I have never thought i would have seen the day where we have the liberal elite defending large corporations and corporate sentiment. Of course, when they surrender to the army of wokeness then corporations are the good guys and are welcomed members of the *progressive* team.

 

Imagine wanting people to take you seriously and actually typing this.

 

17 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

Ah, yes, J.D. Vance, venture capitalist...surely knows what's "in the interest of the average American."

Amusing how you guys seem to want to try and turn him into some type of elitist. Yes, that is his job. He clearly remains close to his roots. The guy understands the needs of Appalachia because he grew up in it. You really cant deny that. no need to spin him into something he is not because you are just fooling yourself.

 

20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Please show me the tax code that would allow for this thing to happen.  I like learning.

Since you like learning, before taking on the tax code, maybe go back to English class and learn a little bit more about hyperbole. Politicians tend to be good at it. 

 

But since you mentioned the tax code, certainly provisions can be made to favor certain companies (industries) over others. While I may not necessarily be a fan of such favoritism, the Dems have been experts at this for much of the last century. You can look no further than to many of the green energy subsidies as a way to create favorable tax code treatment to certain businesses as example 1. 

To your specific point, which I would argue as disingenuous at worst or just naive at best, No, you cannot put in the tax code penalties that will specifically raise Coke's taxes for being overly woke, while cutting Pepsi's for not speaking out. That would never happen. However, there are many ways the tax code can be manipulated to give preferential treatment to companies who may not exert a global footprint in favor of more regional companies. There are many ways to structure the tax code that would disincentivise the formation of publicly traded companies in favor or private companies. There are many ways to carve out tax breaks for companies that derive their revenues from "preferred" sources (it is done all the time). There are also ways to structure the code to provide consumer tax breaks to industries to encourage certain consumer behavior over others. Much of this is industry specific and obviously not company specific, but a clever individual could design it to affect a few large companies with minor collatoral damage to others. 

 

I'm just confused on why holding corporations and people accountable for supporting ridiculous legislative moves and behavior (especially compared when looking at any other global first world democracy) is automatically labeled as "cancel culture" or "wokeness". But I guess that's the U.S. for you.

 

Also can we stop pretending that the GOP as a whole "cares" about the average US worker? When they love nothing more than striking down unions and organized labor to exploit the average US worker and allow further income inequality/wage suppression. The Koch brothers live for this.

Edited April 14, 20214 yr by ytown2ctown

34 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Amusing how you guys seem to want to try and turn him into some type of elitist. Yes, that is his job. He clearly remains close to his roots. The guy understands the needs of Appalachia because he grew up in it. You really cant deny that. no need to spin him into something he is not because you are just fooling yourself.

 

Repeat after me. 

 

He. Is. Not. From. Appalachia.

 

It. Is. A. Grift.

49 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Repeat after me. 

 

He. Is. Not. From. Appalachia.

 

It. Is. A. Grift.

I apologize, I forgot, per the official progressive talking points, he is a rich, white male, elite, educated in the Ivy League and, venture capitalist vulture who lives solely to exploit the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. 

At least that is the line for those who have a lack of discernment.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Since you like learning, before taking on the tax code, maybe go back to English class and learn a little bit more about hyperbole. Politicians tend to be good at it. 

 

But since you mentioned the tax code, certainly provisions can be made to favor certain companies (industries) over others. While I may not necessarily be a fan of such favoritism, the Dems have been experts at this for much of the last century. You can look no further than to many of the green energy subsidies as a way to create favorable tax code treatment to certain businesses as example 1. 

To your specific point, which I would argue as disingenuous at worst or just naive at best, No, you cannot put in the tax code penalties that will specifically raise Coke's taxes for being overly woke, while cutting Pepsi's for not speaking out. That would never happen. However, there are many ways the tax code can be manipulated to give preferential treatment to companies who may not exert a global footprint in favor of more regional companies. There are many ways to structure the tax code that would disincentivise the formation of publicly traded companies in favor or private companies. There are many ways to carve out tax breaks for companies that derive their revenues from "preferred" sources (it is done all the time). There are also ways to structure the code to provide consumer tax breaks to industries to encourage certain consumer behavior over others. Much of this is industry specific and obviously not company specific, but a clever individual could design it to affect a few large companies with minor collatoral damage to others. 

 

So do you support Vance's proposal to "punish" companies via higher taxes if they speak out against, say, new voting legislation and to "reward" companies via lower taxes if they're helping out the "Average American" (and also, notably, not speaking out against new voting legislation)?

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

So do you support Vance's proposal to "punish" companies via higher taxes if they speak out against, say, new voting legislation and to "reward" companies via lower taxes if they're helping out the "Average American" (and also, notably, not speaking out against new voting legislation)?

I believe i said "I have not been a fan of such favoritism"  In other words, I do not believe the tax code should be used to play favorites and to punish certaing companies or reward other companies that may be in line with the goals of a particular administration. 

I do not believe in using the tax code as a weapon. I know that many Democrats disagree on this matter and would be perfectly acceptable with such tactics. However, I would not. 

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I do not believe in using the tax code as a weapon. I know that many Democrats disagree on this matter and would be perfectly acceptable with such tactics. However, I would not. 

 

When did any Democrat or someone on the left suggest this?

 

Every tax brings winners and losers, and the left often advocates new taxes on harmful industries (gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, etc) or on especially large companies or rich individuals regardless of political leanings. Where has anyone on the left suggested using the government to punish companies that support right wing ideologies? You throw out these garbage arguments with absolutely no examples.

1 minute ago, ryanlammi said:

 

When did any Democrat or someone on the left suggest this?

 

Every tax brings winners and losers, and the left often advocates new taxes on harmful industries (gasoline taxes, carbon taxes, etc) or on especially large companies or rich individuals regardless of political leanings. Where has anyone on the left suggested using the government to punish companies that support right wing ideologies? You throw out these garbage arguments with absolutely no examples.

Vance is not making specific suggestions. He is speaking a bunch of hyperbole to his base. Yes, they do understand it as hyperbole.

 

The thing that the Democrats do is they manufacture taxes based on preceived preferences to reward certain industries that they favor, even though the technology may not be sufficient to allow them to stand on their own yet (think back to wind/solar tax loopholes from 2008/09) and attempt to use the tax code as a cudgel to punish industries that may not be in their favor. 

 

People want to criticize Vance for his words, but he is acting no different than many Democratic politicians who want to "close loopholes on the rich oil companies" or "make rich corporations pay their fair share" or "punish those companies who move jobs offshore" etc, etc, etc. The vast majority of this is hyperbole by many of the same congressmen who put in those loopholes to begin with. 

 

So, in this case, is Vance really acting any different? 

Again, they aren't proposing to raise taxes or punish companies because they support republicans, or because of their political stances. Vance wants to use the government's powers to punish companies that use their free speech rights to criticize legislation. That is a problem, and not what Democrats propose. You have no leg to stand on.

15 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Vance is not making specific suggestions. He is speaking a bunch of hyperbole to his base. 

 

I think this is what intrigues me the most about him. What does he actually truly believe? How would he act as a legislator? 

4 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

Again, they aren't proposing to raise taxes or punish companies because they support republicans, or because of their political stances. Vance wants to use the government's powers to punish companies that use their free speech rights to criticize legislation. That is a problem, and not what Democrats propose. You have no leg to stand on.

 

 

"We support free speech as long as you only use that speech to support Republican ideas."

 

"We only believe votes cast for Republicans were legal."

 

"You have a right to vote as long as you vote Republican."

 

But we can't call these people fascists.

Not to get too far off 2022 senate race, but I find it somewhat amusing to remember Rand Paul called Barack Obama "un-American" for criticizing BP after their horrendous oil spill in 2012. Now Rand wants us all to boycott Coke or whoever lol. 

 

Come on Rand, I've tried so hard to like you....make up your mind.  

5 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

Again, they aren't proposing to raise taxes or punish companies because they support republicans, or because of their political stances. Vance wants to use the government's powers to punish companies that use their free speech rights to criticize legislation. That is a problem, and not what Democrats propose. You have no leg to stand on.

Vance is being hyperbolic. He is just trying to energize his base. Making a twitter post and proposing policy are two different things. If he actually were trying to make a policy proposal that would be one thing. THis is just hyperbole for the base. I am surprised you can't recognize it.

1 hour ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

"We support free speech as long as you only use that speech to support Republican ideas."

 

"We only believe votes cast for Republicans were legal."

 

"You have a right to vote as long as you vote Republican."

 

But we can't call these people fascists.

You clearly do not understand what a fascist is based on this assessment. Taking Vance's Twitter as anything more than hyperbole is just ignorant or otherwise disingenuous. 

 

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Vance is being hyperbolic. He is just trying to energize his base. Making a twitter post and proposing policy are two different things. If he actually were trying to make a policy proposal that would be one thing. THis is just hyperbole for the base. I am surprised you can't recognize it.

 

Here's my issue with it: Vance knows he's full of sh**, it's Cotton/Hawley/Cruz syndrome and we can't afford any more of that. 

 

Look, I know hyperbole is inseparable from politics, i.e. "corporations are robbing our citizens", it's quite another thing to say something you know to be wholly untrue (and illegal) - not just an exaggeration - as a means of mobilizing support. I can deal with politicians being dramatic and over the top, but using lies to fuel emotional responses from people who don't know better is a road I don't want to go down any further - Trump did a number on our republic with those same tactics. 

Edited April 15, 20214 yr by YABO713

9 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

You clearly do not understand what a fascist is based on this assessment. Taking Vance's Twitter as anything more than hyperbole is just ignorant or otherwise disingenuous. 

We heard you the first time!

No need to repeat yourself over and over, as it's just not convincing.  You can't defend what Vance said, so you just say he didn't mean what he said, he meant what you want him to have meant.

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I apologize, I forgot, per the official progressive talking points, he is a rich, white male, elite, educated in the Ivy League and, venture capitalist vulture who lives solely to exploit the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. 

At least that is the line for those who have a lack of discernment.

 

And this is actually a criticism levied from those in Eastern Kentucky who resented his book when it was released. It didn't start as a progressive jab. 

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

Look, I know hyperbole is inseparable from politics, i.e. "corporations are robbing our citizens", it's quite another thing to say something you know to be wholly untrue (and illegal)

While I competely agree with your assessment and statment here, I say that this has been going on by both sides significantly over the last 20+ years.  Was Vance acting a bit irresponsible in his statements? I will give you that. However, there are nameless Democrats that can be guilty of the same thing over the years. Schumer has even had a few whoppers in recent years too. I agree with you that Trump brought out the worst in a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. 

 

However, where I will draw a bit of contrast with your take on what Vance said  as advocating for something illegal vs just partisan hyperbole. While intended to rile up the base, he made no specific policy proposal for how to do this (For example, it is a bit different than saying, "were going to build a big glorious wall on the border and Mexico will pay for it" or "we are going to shut down the media companies that openly lie about my presidency"). Vance's statement was partisan red meat at its finest intended to inspire a base that felt ignored. He knows this, but if you parse his words, there was no policy perscription there. Second, the tax code could legally be manipulated to create some consequences that may specifically hinder certain industries or types of businesses if Congress wanted. It is done all the time. much of this is often no different than some of the methods that Liz Warren wants to use to reform the tax code.  

 

So it can be done, it would depend on a lot of details. There is likely much about what he said that would not pass muster, but I do agree that Vance is wading into this mess was irresponsible. But again, people live in glass houses so... 

Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

While I competely agree with your assessment and statment here, I say that this has been going on by both sides significantly over the last 20+ years.  Was Vance acting a bit irresponsible in his statements? I will give you that. However, there are nameless Democrats that can be guilty of the same thing over the years. Schumer has even had a few whoppers in recent years too. I agree with you that Trump brought out the worst in a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. 

 

However, where I will draw a bit of contrast with your take on what Vance said  as advocating for something illegal vs just partisan hyperbole. While intended to rile up the base, he made no specific policy proposal for how to do this (For example, it is a bit different than saying, "were going to build a big glorious wall on the border and Mexico will pay for it" or "we are going to shut down the media companies that openly lie about my presidency"). Vance's statement was partisan red meat at its finest intended to inspire a base that felt ignored. He knows this, but if you parse his words, there was no policy perscription there. Second, the tax code could legally be manipulated to create some consequences that may specifically hinder certain industries or types of businesses if Congress wanted. It is done all the time. much of this is often no different than some of the methods that Liz Warren wants to use to reform the tax code.  

 

So it can be done, it would depend on a lot of details. There is likely much about what he said that would not pass muster, but I do agree that Vance is wading into this mess was irresponsible. But again, people live in glass houses so... 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with what you said - I'd just draw this distinction. I think most Democrats genuinely believe they're right - you and I just objectively disagree with them (and who knows, maybe we're wrong). Nonetheless, I can't and won't "both sides" this for two reasons:

 

1. January 6th shows that this was more than hyperbole to the new GOP base. 

 

2. Cotton / Cruz / Hawley & Co. are making arguments completely inconsistent with what they'd believed prior to 2016 - because they see a power vaccuum in populism. While Markey, Whitehouse, Warren, et al might be full of it (in my humble opinion) they're running on essentially the same platforms they've been on for the last decade or two - perhaps just evolving on some issues. So while I think Dems are wrong, I don't think they're disingenuous. 

I find it interesting that "Dems are wrong" for advocating for workers, unions, etc. while income inequality is at its highest. Right wing culture war based (and also usually racism based) populism is seen as "patriotic" while left wing populism is seen as "socialist". The US is so far right wing compared to most other functioning first world democracies. I'm sure Reagan is happy a hell at how little the top 1% pay in taxes.😑

Edited April 15, 20214 yr by ytown2ctown

It's all branding.

24 minutes ago, ytown2ctown said:

I find it interesting that "Dems are wrong" for advocating for workers, unions, etc. while income inequality is at its highest. Right wing culture war based (and also usually racism based) populism is seen as "patriotic" while left wing populism is seen as "socialist". The US is so far right wing compared to most other functioning first world democracies. I'm sure Reagan is happy a hell at how little the top 1% pay in taxes.😑

I don’t disagree with what they’re fighting for - I disagree as to how best to achieve it.

 

but that’s a discussion for another forum lol

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I apologize, I forgot, per the official progressive talking points, he is a rich, white male, elite, educated in the Ivy League and, venture capitalist vulture who lives solely to exploit the lives of the poor and disadvantaged. 

At least that is the line for those who have a lack of discernment.

 

It is just an objective fact that he is not from Appalachia. But I guess objective facts are "progressive talking points" "for those who have a lack of discernment." I forgot we only deal in alternative facts now.

17 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Vance is not making specific suggestions. He is speaking a bunch of hyperbole to his base. Yes, they do understand it as hyperbole.

 

Just like the Trumpers understood his language to be hyperbole on January 6th? 

Part of leadership is learning to be responsible with your words.  Hyperbole or not (and I think not), suggesting that legislators should retaliate against private businesses for their political speech through the legislative process is irresponsible and dangerous.  Nothing good can come of it, and it could build a constituency for capricious political actions.  The fact that the political speech that Vance wants to retaliate against is pretty much just in defense of voting rights, it should be especially concerning for anyone who believes in democracy.

2 hours ago, X said:

Part of leadership is learning to be responsible with your words. 

 

2 hours ago, X said:

Hyperbole or not (and I think not), suggesting that legislators should retaliate against private businesses for their political speech

Pot meet kettle. Wasn't  it only a few years ago where Maxine Waters and other prominent democrats and talking heads were advocating for harassing Trump supporters for wearing MAGA hats and the like along with any staffer in the admin who was on their private time.  Let's at least acknowledge that fact

48 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Pot meet kettle. Wasn't  it only a few years ago where Maxine Waters and other prominent democrats and talking heads were advocating for harassing Trump supporters for wearing MAGA hats and the like along with any staffer in the admin who was on their private time.  Let's at least acknowledge that fact

 

Was she proposing using the government's powers to punish companies that donated to Trump, or supported Conservative ideas by raising their taxes or putting regulations on a company-by-company basis?

52 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Pot meet kettle. Wasn't  it only a few years ago where Maxine Waters and other prominent democrats and talking heads were advocating for harassing Trump supporters for wearing MAGA hats and the like along with any staffer in the admin who was on their private time.  Let's at least acknowledge that fact

 

No, she did not advocate for harassing Trump supporters- 2 minutes of research shows you are flat out lying about that.  She did advocate for harassing Trump's Cabinet members, which I don't agree with, but it isn't really germane to this discussion- she was talking about private citizens putting pressure onto government officials, not government officials punishing private businesses.  Even then, this is just whataboutism because you are unable to defend Vance's words once again.  First you substituted your own words for his, now you are deflecting to a different topic. If you all you have to offer are lies, whataboutism, and BS, you'd be better off leaving it alone.

42 minutes ago, ryanlammi said:

 

Was she proposing using the government's powers to punish companies that donated to Trump, or supported Conservative ideas by raising their taxes or putting regulations on a company-by-company basis?

She was proposing sending goons to harass them in restaurants and stores. Threaten and intimidate them. It does not matter how it is done, whether you have the right wing threaten corporations with the tax code or the left wing threaten politicians with bodily harm, both are wrong, and both sides are doing it. 

5 hours ago, YABO713 said:

1. January 6th shows that this was more than hyperbole to the new GOP base. 

An interesting thing about Jan 6. The more I have been learning about it, it appears that Trump's speech did not have too much to do with it (unless there was some undergroudn coordination between the WH and some of the right wing groups I was unaware of), but those people were going to storm the Capitol regardless of what Trump said. Even if Trump never showed up the Captiol would have been stormed. 

I used to have someone in my office who was big on those right wing message boards and they were talking and planning to storm the Capitol and do what they did since their prior rally in December. He had told me at least a week ahaed of time that on Jan 6 not to be surprised if the Capitol was stormed and taken over. I told him that he was nuts and it was a bunch of blowhards who were all bark and no bite, but he seemed convinced that it was more likley than not the Capitol would be stormed that day. 

Unless Trump was more seriously involved in coordination of the attack behind the scenes, his speech really did not lead to incite the riot on the Capitol, that was pretty much going to happen anyway.

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

An interesting thing about Jan 6. The more I have been learning about it, it appears that Trump's speech did not have too much to do with it (unless there was some undergroudn coordination between the WH and some of the right wing groups I was unaware of), but those people were going to storm the Capitol regardless of what Trump said. Even if Trump never showed up the Captiol would have been stormed. 

I used to have someone in my office who was big on those right wing message boards and they were talking and planning to storm the Capitol and do what they did since their prior rally in December. He had told me at least a week ahaed of time that on Jan 6 not to be surprised if the Capitol was stormed and taken over. I told him that he was nuts and it was a bunch of blowhards who were all bark and no bite, but he seemed convinced that it was more likley than not the Capitol would be stormed that day. 

Unless Trump was more seriously involved in coordination of the attack behind the scenes, his speech really did not lead to incite the riot on the Capitol, that was pretty much going to happen anyway.

That is ok to believe, but the main reason they were all there  angry on Jan 6 was plenty to do with Trump and his post election tantrums.

23 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

An interesting thing about Jan 6. The more I have been learning about it, it appears that Trump's speech did not have too much to do with it (unless there was some undergroudn coordination between the WH and some of the right wing groups I was unaware of), but those people were going to storm the Capitol regardless of what Trump said. Even if Trump never showed up the Captiol would have been stormed. 

I used to have someone in my office who was big on those right wing message boards and they were talking and planning to storm the Capitol and do what they did since their prior rally in December. He had told me at least a week ahaed of time that on Jan 6 not to be surprised if the Capitol was stormed and taken over. I told him that he was nuts and it was a bunch of blowhards who were all bark and no bite, but he seemed convinced that it was more likley than not the Capitol would be stormed that day. 

Unless Trump was more seriously involved in coordination of the attack behind the scenes, his speech really did not lead to incite the riot on the Capitol, that was pretty much going to happen anyway.

 

But the reason they were on those message boards so angry had a lot to do with Trump's rhetoric beforehand.

 

But I think we digress from the Senate race.. 

Lol imagine thinking Trump and constant escalating his anti science, anti democracy, anti media, and anti anyone who does not support his every move was not fully responsible for January 6. These are the same people who describe themselves as "moderates" but never drew a line with MAGA nation. I guess vote for the red team now matter what, even if it means going down this road. Yikes. Like the dude surrounded himself with Sebastin Gorka, Stephen Miller, and Roger stone but please go on how the modern day GOP isn't a right wing extremist party who "cancels" any true moderates (McCain, Kasich, etc.).

Edited April 15, 20214 yr by ytown2ctown

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

But the reason they were on those message boards so angry had a lot to do with Trump's rhetoric beforehand.

 

But I think we digress from the Senate race.. 

That is very true, I overlooked that part. It was more Trump's rhetoric from November/December than it was the speech at the Capitol that day. 

 

But back to the Senate race.

32 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

She was proposing sending goons to harass them in restaurants and stores. Threaten and intimidate them. It does not matter how it is done, whether you have the right wing threaten corporations with the tax code or the left wing threaten politicians with bodily harm, both are wrong, and both sides are doing it. 

 

She neither proposed "sending goons" nor threatened "bodily harm".  You are, once again, lying.  You're wasting everybody's time with dishonest debate.  Again.

 

11 minutes ago, X said:

sending goons"

It is called hyperbole. Not to be taken literally. But she did insinuate violence if you dont recall. 

 

But time to get back on topic

Edited April 15, 20214 yr by Brutus_buckeye

7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is called hyperbole. Not to be taken literally. But she did insinuate violence if you dont recall. 

 

But time to get back on topic

 

I guess every time you lie it is just hyperbole. 

13 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It is called hyperbole. Not to be taken literally. But she did insinuate violence if you dont recall. 

 

But time to get back on topic

 

Actually I didn't recall, so I looked it up.  That's why I posted the link the first time I called you out for lying about what she said.