Part of President Trump's platform for 2024

My understanding is that some electors were challenged, which happens every election. The challenges failed as they didn’t have the votes.

In fact, I think they may have attempted to challenge electors after the riot, but it was quickly shut down.

There was no chance for the challenges to succeed. The Dems in the house had the majority and were United. No chance. Additionally, repubs in house and Senate were not United for the challenge. No chance. No need for Pelosi to plan j6.

She made bad choices for security, probably out of fear/mistrust of the military. Remember, she believed Trump would order a military take over of the capitol so she turned down DT offer of national guard troops.

peace to you

 

I believe you are the one almost correct.

There was about to be a challenge but the riot took place because someone failed to keep the riot from taking place.

Wonder who that was? See other forum thread Pelosi. Then after the, "riot," no challenge! "Riot," as I asked, whose riot? Who would benefit?

A. Donald Trump
B. Nancy Pelosi
C. Klaus Martin Schwab
D. György Schwartz (George Soros)
E. Mine
F. Yours


P T Barnum said, "

 

I don’t think anyone “benefited” from the riot. Pelosi didn’t need to cause the riot stop the challenge of electors. The Dems had the votes to stop the challenge.

Please don’t present Trump and his supporters as “suckers” that were manipulated into a riot by Dems to hurt Trump.

peace to you

 

Well, good points all. The Dems have certainly pushed a narrative about j6 that has been parroted by traditional media. Not sure how effective it’s been. I’m not sure those that lost this year were tied to j6 riots specially.

My point was, j6 was not planned by the Dems to make political points, which was the allegation (look who benefited… that’s who planned it…)

peace to you

 

Nope the dems did not plan it. It was a loosely planned event by no direct organization but just putting the word out on social media.

However,

As the dems saw this on social media they planted FBI agent to stir up the crowd (Ray Epps) other progressive organization showed up as Trump supporters to stir things up, Pelosi refused the appropriate amount of security which has now been proven. All to get Trump.

 

Wait, what? Military takeover? By Trump? She had no such fear. There was zero chance of such a thing. However…

It is true the Dem Progressive Left called up a massive number of National Guard troops afterward. And that they used the opportunity to purge Trump sympathizers from those numbers.

Dem Progressive Left Modus Operandi: Falsely accuse others of what they themselves are planning/doing.

 

Pelosi literally contacted the Sect of Defense to get assurance he would not obey a command from Trump to use troops to conduct a military takeover. It was widely reported at the time.

peace to you

 

OK, but that misses the point of the post. What Pelosi, or any Dem for that matter, claims and what is real are generally at odds, often diametrically. Taking what they say at face value is wrongheaded, misguided, and a surefire way to miss the truth.

 

It answers the question why she didn’t accept Trumps off of troops for security.

peace to you

 

Only for someone willing to take at face value what that Dem Progressive Leftist says. It would be a grave mistake to do so, but for now it's still a free country... sort of. :Wink

 

Well, I think they sincerely believed the US military could possibly intervene in the j6 procedures.

They really were afraid the military would intervene, which explains, imo, why Pelosi turned down troops for security.

peace to you

 

I'm willing to look at any actual evidence. But Pelosi fearmongering, or for that matter any Dem Progressive Left fearmongering, is not evidence of anything but fearmongering.

And yes, the same applies to someone else’s fearmongering.

But that aside, the Capitol Police didn’t take extra precautions. They left the few CP there to deal with the situation. They all knew better than to do that.

 

I’m not sure the point is being made clearly enough. Politicians say things they want people to believe. It does not mean the politicians believe it. They are often quite clever, devious even, in their pretenses.

So, Pelosi feigning fear of a military intervention is not evidence that she was afraid, or that there was such a threat looming. It is evidence of her wanting others to fear it, or to believe there was a real possibility.

 

I do understand what you are saying. Politicians say all sorts of things they don’t really believe to push a narrative.

I am saying that not only did she say she feared Trump would use troops to overthrow the government, she spoke with the Defense Secretary to seek assurance he would not obey such a command and she refused Trumps offer to deploy national guard troops for security prior to j6.

We can disagree, no problem. I believe her actions demonstrated she was really afraid Trump would use troops to overthrow the government.

peace to you

 

Acting out the part is important in carrying a narrative.

So far, all that’s been demonstrated is that she’s fooled some people with her fearmongering.

AOC was amateurish and easily outed, which put them all in a bad light.

However, Pelosi is a polished pro.


But since it keeps coming up, when Pelosi spoke with the Secretary of Defense (Chris Miller, right?), what is he reported to have said?