Trump loyalists in Congress to challenge Electoral College results in Jan. 6 joint session (Update: Insurrectionists storm Congress)(And now what?) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

I guess it's time to start a thread for this. We know that at least 140 members of Congress have pledged to join the objection. Under federal law, if at least one member of each house (HOR and Senate) objects, each house will adjourn the joint session for their own session (limited at two hours) to take up the objection. If both houses pass a resolution objecting to the EC result, further action can take place. If both houses do not (i.e. if one or neither passes a resolution), the objection is powerless and the college result is certified.

Clearly this is political theater as we know such a resolution will not pass the House, and there's good reason to think it wouldn't pass the Senate either (with or without the two senators from Georgia). The January 6 joint session is traditionally a ceremonial one. This one will not be.

Many traditional pillars of Republican support have condemned the plan as futile and damaging. Certainly the Trump loyalists don't care - and many are likely doing it for fundraising purposes or to carry weight with the fraction of their constituencies that think this is a good idea.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32717.pdf

 

[RobF]

The crazies at least genuinely and sincerely believed the election was stolen. Given that, how should anyone expect them to act? If I was convinced the election was stolen from my side, I might take to the streets and want to storm some government buildings too.

I think this is crucial, because it's generally the case that, aside from a few exceptions, most people taking part in things like this genuinely think they're not the bad guys. They think they're the good guys, standing up against the bad guys.

I'd also add, as relates to the discussion about the military, that when we're talking about theoretical involvement, it wouldn't come from the individuals thinking they were joining in a coup. They would generally think they're opposing a coup, in a manner that might be unconventional but is consistent with their core values.

Even when they're taking actions that are clearly, in and of themselves, bad, they would typically argue that they were justified by the perceived evil of their opponents.

So I would argue it's not just about who these people are, and how can we stop them, the fundamental question is how did they become who they are, how did they lose touch with reality; essentially, how were they radicalised?

People like yourself who are informed about issues in depth may not be exposed to large numbers of people who aren't. I don't know. But I know I live in an area that is full of low information voters who only pay a minimal amount of attention to issues, so their reactions are based on superficial understanding of them. I know many single issue voters, yet few of them could expound at length on their positions. Many have never heard of Parler, OANN or Infowars, they don't know who Alex Jones is and couldn't tell you who Hawley, King or Taylor Greene are. Any knowledge of QAnon would be at elementary levels. So I am saying that these people may be confirmed Trump supporters without really knowing much about why they are for him other than surface level things. Most don't like Pelosi, AOC, Shumer, etc. but they couldn't tell you why, except, "Democrats, Socialists, baby killers."

I wish those close to me who voted for Trump got their news from somewhere other than Facebook, but that's not reality. They get their "news" from an algorithm that reinforces whatever Facebook shows that they are interested in. So while I am reading and trying to become better informed through different media and weighing issues according to long held principles, people I know well are scrolling through their Facebook feed. It is little wonder that we come to different conclusions.

Right. Most of us here are fairly well informed - at least relatively, or we probably wouldn't be here - but there's plenty of people out there whose level of information runs to narrow and shallow. It's very easy to get wrong impressions. If all your media is telling you the Democrats aren't good, and Trump isn't bad, and if most or all of your friends and family - consuming the same media - are saying the same thing, then you're probably voting Trump. You may never even hear about why he's bad, and if you do, it's probably in the context that it was 'fake news'. So when a lot of us are saying that Trump has repeatedly shown who he is, and no-one has any excuse for voting for him the second time around - which is something I've said myself - there is a group of people who will be blissfully ignorant of Trump showing us who he is. They don't know about it, and if they do, it's in the context of it not being true.

The people whose understanding is narrow, deep, and wrong - from diving down the QAnon rabbithole for example - will have started from the same place.

Broadly speaking, I think responsibility has to be considered both in individual and collective terms. It's fine - and true! - to say that individuals have a responsibility to be informed. At the same time, enabling individuals to be informed is a collective effort. To be informed, people need to be educated, they need time, and they need to be able to access information, preferably without first having to identify and reject a pipeline of disinformation. Information comes from others, education too, self-education requires opportunity and time, and having time depends on circumstances, including employment, financial status and local resources. It's a collective effort.

So while I think it's absolutely fair to criticise Trump voters for getting it so very wrong, at the same time, we have to consider how they came to do so, and how it is we would have expected them to avoid that. Stop watching Fox News? But if they think Fox News is good and true - and if your information is framed by Fox News, you'd probably think that - what would prompt them to do that?

(I'd have more to say, but real life calls. Might add more later!)

 

[SystemShock]

People like yourself who are informed about issues in depth may not be exposed to large numbers of people who aren't. I don't know. But I know I live in an area that is full of low information voters who only pay a minimal amount of attention to issues, so their reactions are based on superficial understanding of them. I know many single issue voters, yet few of them could expound at length on their positions. Many have never heard of Parler, OANN or Infowars, they don't know who Alex Jones is and couldn't tell you who Hawley, King or Taylor Greene are. Any knowledge of QAnon would be at elementary levels. So I am saying that these people may be confirmed Trump supporters without really knowing much about why they are for him other than surface level things. Most don't like Pelosi, AOC, Shumer, etc. but they couldn't tell you why, except, "Democrats, Socialists, baby killers."

I wish those close to me who voted for Trump got their news from somewhere other than Facebook, but that's not reality. They get their "news" from an algorithm that reinforces whatever Facebook shows that they are interested in. So while I am reading and trying to become better informed through different media and weighing issues according to long held principles, people I know well are scrolling through their Facebook feed. It is little wonder that we come to different conclusions.

Sure there are low information voters, but if they have access to Facebook, they surely have access to all sorts of information, and they choose not to inform themselves; they choose to believe a single source of information, even after witnessing events that contradict that information.

"I didn't know the gun was loaded" is not really an excuse.

 

[SystemShock]

okay, he doesn’t get a pass, I definitely agree. He’s a cynical power-hungry dirt bag who used Trump to achieve his own political goals. I don’t think he “gave clearance“ for the sedition caucus though, and he tried his best to hold his senators back from challenging the electoral vote certification. I do agree that he enabled Trump by going along with the lies about election integrity and not speaking out about the result of the election until after the date in December when the electors cast their votes.

But I put him in a different category than my sister in law, for example, who didn’t like Trump even though she is a Republican. Never asked her if she voted for him the first time or not, just assumed she didn’t. Even though she didn’t like him, she ended up voting for him in 2020, which really surprised me tbh. She said she really struggled with it, but in the end she was so worried about a slide into socialism that would affect her grandchildren’s lives that she voted for Trump. That’s how worried she is by one of the big lies used by the Republican Party to scare people into voting for them.

So she is a conservative, but not a Trumpist, and voted for Trump this past election. I don’t agree with her, but I don’t think she “deserves” the attack on our democracy any more than I do, not really.

I think she deserves part of the blame for the attack on our democracy.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Grassley.

Numbers 1, 2, 3 in our chain of command and a civillian mob was able to overtake a building and occupy it with all 3 of those persons present. Let that sink in.

A mob commissioned by the POTUS. We spend nearly a trillion dollars on the military and we fail to adequately protect three of the most important persons in our democracy...from civillians. It's bullshirt Chuck. But, all summer long, I saw protestors gassed, beat and shot. It's nearly unforgivable.

The part that irks me is 85% of the next 2 years will be just about fixing all the **** that Trump/Rs wrecked
In ‘22 Those same Rs will ***** and moan about Dems not doing anything
We’ll see if memories can extend back a whole 2 years

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Took him long enough to resign.

Derrick Evans resigns W.Va. House after entering U.S. Capitol with mob - WV MetroNews

Evans, who was arrested on federal charges Friday, was set to be a first-time officeholder.

wvmetronews.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

For the broader conversation, there's been a lot of research in how to talk with highly indoctrinated people, and I've talked about it before. And the answer is never to try to brow beat them over with facts, and bludgeon them over how wrong they are. That only serves to entrench them further. As @jdn9201 mentioned, talking with someone respectfully helps. But honestly, the only way to talk with someone like that is to talk about values and ask questions about their values and how that lines up with someone like Trump. And then giving them space to think about it on their own. You almost never, ever get someone to say "you're right, I was wrong". But over time they start to realize that someone like Trump does not actually line up with their core values.

I've had moderate success using this approach in my real life. It's exhausting, but I've managed to reach a couple of family members to at least get them to say they will not vote for Trump (they did not vote for Biden though). But I had to talk extensively about the type of person they raised me to be, their commitment to the poor through the church. Their love of decorum and decency, and so on. Then asking why Trump lines up with those values. Anytime they tried to bring up their fear of a Biden presidency leading to socialism, I would ask a couple of question about what specifically Biden has said that makes them think he will bring about what they fear, and then again ask them about the most recent Trump tweet or behaviour and how it is consistent with their values.

Now, the question is why is it up for liberals/Democrats to be the adults? Because someone has to be. I assume we have an outcome we want, so the question is how do get to that outcome. It might feel good to go for righteous fury, and smite our enemies with our mighty fists of logic and justice -- but if it doesn't work, then isn't that the wrong thing to do?

75 million people voted for Trump. That can't be ignored. The number one goal is to reach those people and get them to recognize that their own values should prevent them from ever electing a demagogue like Trump again. I'm not concerned about policy at this point, I want to get Americans to adopt a basic set of principles that would prevent someone as anti-American as Trump from holding high office ever again.

 

[brandon]

It might feel good to go for righteous fury, and smite our enemies with our mighty fists of logic and justice -- but if it doesn't work, then isn't that the wrong thing to do?

You’re absolutely right. You put perfectly into words exactly what I want to do (smash with the mighty hand of justice), but what I recognize is ultimately ineffective in changing minds. And to be frank? It’s actually part of the reason I come to this site. This is the place I can vent my frustration and say exactly what I think and exactly why these people were wrong and that they need to come out and admit it. Then, back in the real world, I also approach the trumpians with kid gloves as well, believe it or not. My parents, and especially my mom, is in this category.

But the other thing is this: I’m admitting you’re right here. People can admit they’re wrong and apologize, and they SHOULD do it. People learn at a young age to admit when they’re wrong and apologize. And if people aren’t remorseful and don’t apologize, even when they know they’re wrong, it’s just infuriating. If you expect it from your kids, we should expect it from you.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

If Parler is removing your shirt, you might want to rethink how you're doing stuff...

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

For the broader conversation, there's been a lot of research in how to talk with highly indoctrinated people, and I've talked about it before. And the answer is never to try to brow beat them over with facts, and bludgeon them over how wrong they are. That only serves to entrench them further. As @jdn9201 mentioned, talking with someone respectfully helps. But honestly, the only way to talk with someone like that is to talk about values and ask questions about their values and how that lines up with someone like Trump. And then giving them space to think about it on their own. You almost never, ever get someone to say "you're right, I was wrong". But over time they start to realize that someone like Trump does not actually line up with their core values.

I've had moderate success using this approach in my real life. It's exhausting, but I've managed to reach a couple of family members to at least get them to say they will not vote for Trump (they did not vote for Biden though). But I had to talk extensively about the type of person they raised me to be, their commitment to the poor through the church. Their love of decorum and decency, and so on. Then asking why Trump lines up with those values. Anytime they tried to bring up their fear of a Biden presidency leading to socialism, I would ask a couple of question about what specifically Biden has said that makes them think he will bring about what they fear, and then again ask them about the most recent Trump tweet or behaviour and how it is consistent with their values.

Now, the question is why is it up for liberals/Democrats to be the adults? Because someone has to be. I assume we have an outcome we want, so the question is how do get to that outcome. It might feel good to go for righteous fury, and smite our enemies with our mighty fists of logic and justice -- but if it doesn't work, then isn't that the wrong thing to do?

75 million people voted for Trump. That can't be ignored. The number one goal is to reach those people and get them to recognize that their own values should prevent them from ever electing a demagogue like Trump again. I'm not concerned about policy at this point, I want to get Americans to adopt a basic set of principles that would prevent someone as anti-American as Trump from holding high office ever again.

As a teacher I think of it as ‘tai chi questioning’ - using the certainty of their answers to redirect the energy
And it’s a great strategy for one person up to about 15 or so
But then what?
There is a LOT of propaganda out there that needs deconstructing
My hope is Biden and Harris form a good cop/bad cop routine- not sure it’s going to happen bc Harris probably has more political aspirations than VP, but I think it’s what would be most effective in the near future

 

[Eeyore]

We need to bring back, and enforce, the Fairness Doctrine. Along with that, we need a new definition of what is a source of news. Things have changed significantly since the doctrine was abandoned.

That'll help, but it won't solve the problem. My Dad talks to me about Trump like he's trying to get me to join his religion. This isn't about knowledge. This is about belief, and organizations that reinforce those beliefs.

 

[nolaspe]

Apple followed Google's lead and booted facebook total landscaping...

Parler has now been booted by Amazon, Apple and Google | CNN Business

Parler, the alternative social media platform favored by conservatives, now finds itself virtually homeless on the internet as Amazon, Apple and Google have all booted it from their platforms in a span of a little more than 24 hours.

www.cnn.com

 

[Booker]

Army veteran who wouldn’t leave anyone behind comforts fellow lawmaker during Capitol riots

‘I wasn’t going to leave House floor until every member was gone,' Mr Crow says

www.independent.co.uk

 

[The moose]

We need to bring back, and enforce, the Fairness Doctrine. Along with that, we need a new definition of what is a source of news. Things have changed significantly since the doctrine was abandoned.

That'll help, but it won't solve the problem. My Dad talks to me about Trump like he's trying to get me to join his religion. This isn't about knowledge. This is about belief, and organizations that reinforce those beliefs.

I can't agree more about the fairness doctrine !

 

[J-DONK]

We need to bring back, and enforce, the Fairness Doctrine. Along with that, we need a new definition of what is a source of news. Things have changed significantly since the doctrine was abandoned.

That'll help, but it won't solve the problem. My Dad talks to me about Trump like he's trying to get me to join his religion. This isn't about knowledge. This is about belief, and organizations that reinforce those beliefs.

This is part of it, but this won't help the facebook crowd. Everyone on this board should watch the doc The Social Dilemma to get an inkling as what is happening to these people. They are in a feedback loop. Non-biased information isn't really available unless they seeking it out. People won't stop drinking kool-aid until these engagement algorithms are outlawed.

 

[PurpleReign]

So, like, is anybody getting in trouble for murdering the cop?

 

[The moose]

This is part of it, but this won't help the facebook crowd. Everyone on this board should watch the doc The Social Dilemma to get an inkling as what is happening to these people. They are in a feedback loop. Non-biased information isn't really available unless they seeking it out. People won't stop drinking kool-aid until these engagement algorithms are outlawed.

I tend to disagree the fairness doctrine needs to be applied to the digital world the most. If they actually apply it to the Facebook algorithm to give even ten percent news from the other side it would make a huge difference.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Richard]

I’d love it if that was an FBI sting site. It would save a lot of time and money hunting them down.