Thanks for the link. I just finished watching it---though it doesn't start up until about 30 minutes in. Very measured. Nothing sensational.
Interesting point about the Uniparty legislatively closing off the ability of the Vice President to remand dubious votes back to the states (where formerly, they claimed there was no such power). Of course, in my opinion, one does not modify a Constitutional power by legislation, only by amendment, so it would be like legislation to nullify the 2nd amendment---which has been tried repeatedly, but is totally unconstitutional.
Interesting hint that Trump's January 6th crowd may have exceeded 1 million attendees. Which means that the arrested Capitol rioters amounted to a few hundredths of a percent of the total crowd. It is not possible to "incite" a riot and have such an indifferent response. (For such a total number of ordinary citizens, the statistical expectation of violent criminals would be about 4,000 violent actors.) Of the true violent actors, they came with a plan in mind, not in response to anything Trump had to say (and the timeline precludes them from having been in response to Trump, since the Capitol intrusions commenced about 30-45 minutes before he concluded his speech).
Trump offered no answer to the question of whether civil war might be in the making. (My own opinion is that it is not, but that is a different conversation.) Trump did allow that there is great passion at large for the country's welfare and great hatred for the evil that is being pursued. He did not think that is a good situation (and it is not).
It ends at that. But to carry the question forward, what might happen to crystalize an even more militant reaction by the public? I suspect it could easily be another election steal (foreign powers intervening in elections, contrary to Trump's still-active Executive Order) and/or a declaration of war against Russia, be it unilateral or Congressional (intrusion on Trump's possible residual authority as Commander-in-Chief). Under the Devolution theory, there would have to be a "red line" to be crossed before moves could be made, and I think these would be the most serious of red lines. And/or draconic tyranny under the guise of another "pandemic". In the face of war and a pandemic lockdown, is it likely that Biden would suspend elections? I think so, and this would be an even worse provocation to public sentiment. We could be on the brink of civil disobedience.
As I continue to think about this, I am sorry to say it appears to be a scenario for a "perfect storm." This would be the point where the sheep dogs (military) have to stand apart from the sheep (people) and the wolves (government) and say "Mr. President, we are obliged NOT to violate the Constitution, and our duty is to oppose all its enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Kindly place your hands in these cuffs."
Rumble link: https://rumble.com/v3aw75q-tucker-carlsons-interviews-with-president-trump.html
Thanks for the link. I just finished watching it---though it doesn't start up until about 30 minutes in. Very measured. Nothing sensational.
Interesting point about the Uniparty legislatively closing off the ability of the Vice President to remand dubious votes back to the states (where formerly, they claimed there was no such power). Of course, in my opinion, one does not modify a Constitutional power by legislation, only by amendment, so it would be like legislation to nullify the 2nd amendment---which has been tried repeatedly, but is totally unconstitutional.
Interesting hint that Trump's January 6th crowd may have exceeded 1 million attendees. Which means that the arrested Capitol rioters amounted to a few hundredths of a percent of the total crowd. It is not possible to "incite" a riot and have such an indifferent response. (For such a total number of ordinary citizens, the statistical expectation of violent criminals would be about 4,000 violent actors.) Of the true violent actors, they came with a plan in mind, not in response to anything Trump had to say (and the timeline precludes them from having been in response to Trump, since the Capitol intrusions commenced about 30-45 minutes before he concluded his speech).
Trump offered no answer to the question of whether civil war might be in the making. (My own opinion is that it is not, but that is a different conversation.) Trump did allow that there is great passion at large for the country's welfare and great hatred for the evil that is being pursued. He did not think that is a good situation (and it is not).
It ends at that. But to carry the question forward, what might happen to crystalize an even more militant reaction by the public? I suspect it could easily be another election steal (foreign powers intervening in elections, contrary to Trump's still-active Executive Order) and/or a declaration of war against Russia, be it unilateral or Congressional (intrusion on Trump's possible residual authority as Commander-in-Chief). Under the Devolution theory, there would have to be a "red line" to be crossed before moves could be made, and I think these would be the most serious of red lines. And/or draconic tyranny under the guise of another "pandemic". In the face of war and a pandemic lockdown, is it likely that Biden would suspend elections? I think so, and this would be an even worse provocation to public sentiment. We could be on the brink of civil disobedience.
As I continue to think about this, I am sorry to say it appears to be a scenario for a "perfect storm." This would be the point where the sheep dogs (military) have to stand apart from the sheep (people) and the wolves (government) and say "Mr. President, we are obliged NOT to violate the Constitution, and our duty is to oppose all its enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Kindly place your hands in these cuffs."