The part that says there's "an orderly transition of power". Trumpers will forever believe that the election was stolen, but they can believe that from the comfort of their homes, they don't need to go out and attempt to overthrow the government because of it.
If any tech company were to try to suppress the "facts" that support the "rigged election" narrative, that would only reinforce the their beliefs.
It's one thing to say there will be an orderly transition of power, but the events of yesterday already made that statement false, and those events were incited by him. So saying something calming out of one side of his mouth doesn't excuse what he's saying out the other side.
> they don't need to go out and attempt to overthrow the government because of it
Yeah, they do.
The election is what defines the legitimate government; if it really had been falsified[1], then anyone who participated in the falsification would be a usurper, and the government instated by the falsified election would be fake. If something like this actually happened, then it would hardly be insane to consider it your patriotic duty to put a stop to it.
The metaphor is overused as hell, but it is apt: Trump shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre, and now he's acting all surprised that a few people got trampled in the rush to get out.
Anybody who believes him at this point obviously has brain worms, but being a notorious liar doesn't exempt you from libel and sedition laws. It is also irrelevant whether the mob sincerely believes the election was stolen, or whether they're using it as an excuse; slander is still slander.
[1]: Using ad-tech to manipulate the way people vote, as the Cambridge Analytica conspiracy theory alleges, is not falsification.
Being a notorious liar actually does excuse you from libel. From Tucker Carlson to Elon Musk, the defense is that nobody reasonable would take them seriously.
I disagree. The constitution says that state electors elect the president, not the people. They did just that. The election is now legally binding, whether there was widespread fraud or not.
Yesterday, Trump still had an unlikely but legal way to prevent Biden from becoming president. Today he does not, so it makes no sense to push any further.
> The part that says there's "an orderly transition of power".
This has been Trump, forever. He strings together contradictions in every sentence he can, and when he can't, he makes sure to contradict or make a random topic change within the next sentence.
Why does he do this? It's a rhetorical trick. That means every time he speaks, most people find something in it that they want to hear. He makes sure not to say anything specific unless it's obvious that he's embellishing it; then if you don't like what he says, it sounds like it was a joke or off the cuff. This has been his whole platform. Say so many things, with so many interpretations, with so little factual basis, that most people can find something they like, and almost no one can pin him down for saying something awful. You just expect him to be grandiose and full of shit, and he is, so it's hard to be upset, as long as you find him charismatic.
If you've ever read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson, it's very similar to JBF's rhetorical style (scary similar). Big ideas, many ideas, full of contradictions, and fluidly swapping between possible interpretations to convince as many as possible, and demonizing anyone who figures out what your doing. It's nasty.
Of course I want to hear that there will be an orderly transition. I do not necessarily disagree with your general analysis, but what are you implying here? That he is still hedging a plot for a coup? Doubtful.
The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election. Today it does not, the election is over, there is no recourse. Trump has nothing to gain from any further unrest.
Late getting back to this response, but I think it's still relevant.
> but what are you implying here? That he is still hedging a plot for a coup? Doubtful.
I think that you are giving him credit he's not due. He's not someone who creates and executes long term, complex plans. He acts on emotion; whatever he's feeling right then, and takes actions that will coerce people into feeling the same way.
He's angry that Biden won and that the certification of the vote is going to happen. Thus the certification is bad, and anyone going along with it is bad, so he says whatever will make the crowd think it's bad.
> The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election.
No, that's not a fact. This was never going to happen. The electors were never going to get scared and overturn the will of the voters. He's a simpleton; he didn't like that he was losing, so he demonized everyone involved with that bad thing that he doesn't like. This is something he's been doing his entire life, and it's effective as long as he has the money, influence, and smart people on the payroll to shape his vitriol and gusto into reality.
If somebody said "your democracatically elected government has been taken away but you should just go home," would you? Would the Trump supporters that raided the capital yesterday? The reason they will forever believe that the election was stolen is because Trump continues to say that the election was stolen.
People spent years de-legitimatizing the 2016 election by claiming that Trump colluded with the Russian government. There were even stories published by mainstream media outlets that Russians hack election machines.
The other side undermining the election results after they lost is not exactly new.
The difference is that there are 250 million documented user engagements with confirmed Russian propaganda pages. Those are the numbers provided directly from Facebook: 76 million on Facebook and 187 million on Instagram. That's a lot of likes, comments and shares.
There is a huge difference between saying "the winning campaign worked with a foreign government to spread disinformation" and "the votes were rigged. If you ignore the fraudulent ballots I won in a landslide."
There's also a long running argument in American politics about voter registration. Over the years both sides have had victories but after the elections no one claims the results of those elections were fraudulent.
Sacking the Capitol Building to prevent certification of an election is certainly new, though. I remain horrified at the level to which republicans genuinely think these situations are equivalent.
There are two ways forward: We make a really big deal out of this and therefore implicitly demand that protests should be suppressed with massive force. Alternatively, we can admit that this is about as peaceful an outcome as we could have possibly hoped for, all things considered.
They pushed past armed guards, broke barriers, entered the chambers of an active joint session of congress forcing the entirety of the USA legislative branch and its Vice President at the very moment they were certifying a presidential election into a secure bunker.
... and you think that's "about as peaceful an outcome as we could possibly have hoped for"?
I genuinely don't understand. This is the kind of operation of government that is supposed to never be disruptible. If past mobs knew it was this easy then we could have had a zillion coups by now.
You're saying they weren't murderers I guess? That they didn't blow up the building or take hostages (though there is footage of a guy with zip ties that looks like he wanted to)? I mean, yeah, that would be worse. This is still unimaginably bad.
Hillary Clinton conceded she lost the very next day. There was an orderly transition process from Obama to Trump that started on the second day after the election. Compare that "undermining" to what the GOP and Trump are doing.
On December 9, 2019, Horowitz released his report on the findings of the DOJ OIG investigation. The OIG found no indication that the investigation of Trump and Russia was motivated by political bias, but did make 17 "basic and fundamental" errors and omissions in its warrant applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to surveil Carter Page, a foreign policy adviser on the Trump campaign.[160][5][161][162][163] The report found that the FBI's investigation had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose,[162] stating: "We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced" the agency's decision to open the investigation
--- end quote ---
What else?
Ah, I also remember Obama calling for months that the election was stolen, inciting violence, calling for forceful removal of government officials and obstructing transition teams. I also remember Obama refusing to commit to a peaceful transition of power until after his supporters stormed the Capitol and his own party (just as complicit) turned against him and certified election results.
Or that time Obama had a sit down meeting with heads of the FBI and directed them to go after Trump's national security adviser in order to get Flynn "arrested or fired".
I don’t know of any mainstream stories about actual votes being changed/hacked but there’s tons of evidence that Russia hacked state voter databases and manipulated online media for their benefit. We also have significant evidence that the trump campaign tried to collide with Russia (he even published those self incriminating emails on Twitter).
Few people cast doubt on the votes themselves however in 2016 and that Trump was the legitimate winner.
In this case there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud after being litigated through the courts and acknowledgement as such by many republican Secretaries of State, senators, etc.
This is a clear escalation but the escalation is due to the deteriorating of our political discourse. I would not have been surprised if we saw something similar if Trump had won a 2nd term.
> I would not have been surprised if we saw something similar if Trump had won a 2nd term.
When you say similar, what do you mean? An armed mob breaking in to the Capital to stop Congress from certifying the electoral college votes and the President-elect? Requiring the evacuation of the entire Congress and the Vice-President to ensure their safety and avoid a potential hostage situation? And then planting pipe bombs in the Capital?
Or do you mean something else?
[EDIT: Look. Let’s be real. There is not a semblance of similarity and there hasn’t been for the past four years. What we saw today was unprecedented and seditious, on the part of the mob, the President himself, and anyone else involved in the planning or execution of this attempted coup. And anyone who can’t see the truth needs to do a real hard gut check right now, no joke.
Let’s also be real. White supremacists are in the minority and their numbers are dwindling. Their days are numbered. There’s more of us than them and at some point if they push hard enough all of us patriotic American citizens who actually respect the Constitution and the vision of justice the United States, at its best, represents, well, we will push back.
These folks lost the Civil War. If they really do want to bring it, it’ll be a tragedy and waste of human life, and, it won’t be a war they’ll win.
And any Trumpists, at this point, go fuck yourselves. You should be ashamed of the treasonous behavior you’ve enabled.
That’s the real talk, and people who hate on it, hate on it because they recognize the truth - you know it deep down, and, you are ashamed of yourselves.
Consider your actions. Anyone can change for the better, as difficult and unpleasant as the process is, it’s always worth the effort.
If I was religious like that I’d pray for you, because you don’t even know how badly you need some forgiveness.]
If any tech company were to try to suppress the "facts" that support the "rigged election" narrative, that would only reinforce the their beliefs.