We dont run the media.
We dont run the government.
We dont run social media.
We dont run the banks.
The gloablist left does.
When they use political violence, they get away with it because they run society. When we so much as smirk in the wrong direction, we get treated as terrorists and they get a new reason to expand their power. They have the hearts and minds and power. We dont resort to violence for any moral reason, but because IT WONT FUCKING WORK AND WILL LITERALLY ONLY MAKE THINGS WORSE.
What the right should be doing, is organizing. Prepping. Learning. Talking with normies and opening minds. Its the people vs the full force of the establishment and we dont win this without an organized, intelligent, moral and overwhelmingly large mass of people first.
The "you will pay" was cringe, but I'm pretty sure that if he had not repudiated him, they would have convicted him and barred him from office for the rest of his life. They were afraid that this would become a Reichstag Fire moment for the Democrats.
It was an unorganized mob of boomers without a plan, that wasn't going to succeed at anything anywhere, let alone in the most highly militarized superpower in the world.
This is not how you prevail, no more than burning the Reichstag would be. In fact, it's a boon to the other side.
Remember it wasn't entirely "unorganized": it was a Trump rally that Trump himself had organized and was encouraging people to attend. After telling them a bunch of stuff about how "if we let this fraud stand we don't have a country anymore". Rhetoric that was repeated by a bunch of people on the right.
People now blame the FBI for inciting what happened, but had Trump et al. not said what they had the FBI's job would have been a lot harder.
At the time it was all going down I said here multiple times that a lot of the rhetoric from the politicians on the right was pretty revolutionary in nature, and it was dangerous to talk that way unless the people saying those things were willing to take the rhetoric to its logical conclusion. And if it was all a ploy to drive donations or get people to vote in some election it was a really stupid and dangerous way to do it.
Sadly that's ultimately what it ended up being.
Gathering somewhere for a rally is completely different from actually trying to accomplish something. They're orders of magnitude removed in terms of the level of organization required.
Ironically, you are here agreeing with the Democrats that Trump was telling them to be violent.
I think it was a mistake, but not for the reason you say. Trump went from nearly having beaten the system again, despite overwhelming odds against him, which in itself was a great shock to them - to it all being about 'massive fraud' which could not be conclusively established and 'insurrection'. I am not sure how much stock we should put in what mainstream media says, but that is what I regret most.
In a "won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest" way, yes. He effectively was declaring the election (and by extension, the government) illegitimate. Where I differ is I think that if election fraud did in fact occur the way Trump and others claimed, after the Supreme Court refused to hear any of the cases an actual insurrection would have been morally justified since all other legal means of redress had been exhausted.
I also think (and I believe I also said this shortly after 1/6) that I would have had no issue with Trump being executed for his role in what happened, to encourage the next guy to not flinch the way Trump did. Especially given his lack of aid toward any of his supporters currently rotting away in prison.
I wasn't going by what MSM said; I was watching the speeches and rhetoric Trump (and others) were making.
Here's an example of electors being blocked from the Capitol in Michigan. Another one where the Texas GOP was talking about secession after the Supreme Court refused to hear one of their cases. What I said about those things in December:
So did the Dems after 2016.
Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't be. But who decides if election fraud (sufficient to change the outcome, I assume) occurred? Anyone can make that claim. And after any election, I'm sure any number of people will think that it occurred. This is a principle unlikely to lead to positive outcomes.
Didn't know you were crazy.
Who appointed these electors? No lawful or legitimate authority.
Sounds to me that you just want mayhem.
Funny, thats how I feel about dense motherfuckers like you. Go start something, see where it gets you, moron.