# Donald Trump's D.C. Speach 01-06-2021



## XDel (Jan 8, 2021)

https://theresistance.video/watch?id=5ff5d5f18675e930bd8e2c27

Video link not supported by Gbatemp at present. Sorry.


----------



## tabzer (Jan 8, 2021)

"Explosions of bullshit."


----------



## notimp (Jan 8, 2021)

Crowd is in a frenzy already - were there prior speeches?

edit: Nope, that was editing. On part of infowars - *grrrml*


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 8, 2021)

watch the voteflakes go into a frenzy over this


----------



## notimp (Jan 8, 2021)

Ehm....

His masterplan was astonishingly bad. 

The speech was made to 'motivate' parts of the republican party to then become a majority, to then convince Pence to "send back the electoral votes" to the individual states, for them to 'reevaluate' - at which point WE WIN.

Meaning, at which point, individual states would have the opportunity to say - 'something was not right in this election' (based on zero won court cases), to then put up electoral delegates independent of who voted what at all (by party affiliation).

That Trump guy is so stupid, that he couldnt read the reluctance of the republicans as 'its over, but we pander Trump and his fans for a while longer' - he really thought, that all it would take was a march on the Capitol, to show republicans 'how strong he was', so then they would invalidate all of the publics vote - to play the ball back to the individual states, which would then declare him the winner (because they would put up delegates by party affiliation).

(Once in a while he also throws in something about 'repeat election', but that doesnt mean 'and then we win' - which is also what he proposes. And knowing who has what capabilities, he more likely banked on states putting up electoral voters based on party affiliation.)


And to convince Pence - he came up with a VERY STRONG plan, namely - he told him -

"Pence, what I'm asking you to do doesnt take courage. It takes courage to do nothing."

Subtext: Pence, I think you have no courage, do what I'm telling you, its your easy option.

edit: And then he repeats it at 28 minutes in, so you can be sure, he didnt misspeak...


Then he whipped up a crowd and got four people killed.

Holy smokes, that guy is stupid. Its all in the speech, btw.


edit: And his reasoning for why he won goes as follows. There are good polling experts, and there are fake ones. The good ones told him, that if he mobilizes 6 more million people, than four years ago to go and vote - he couldnt loose the election. But then 80 million Biden voters turned up. But that cant be right - because nobody believes that, and the good experts certainly couldnt have been wrong, because those are the good ones - so obviously, the 80 million Biden votes - were computer votes... Said with a *he is so dissappointed* demeanor, to which the crowd responds "we love you, we love you" (essentially - maybe not at that exact quote...  ).


edit2:

Later on he comes to his reasoning, why the election was so fraudulent - where he uses 10 different reasons, none of which show actual fraud, but maybe reverse repression attempts, or repression attempts.

Example: "They put in ID verification, but they removed signature checking." (Yes, because ID verification is more secure, and graphology is a hoax.  ) - They changed "something" without having it go through the legislative process first, and now they got 30.000 more votes from "democrat districts". (So the reverse of what gerrymandering, and reducing the number of voting places in poor areas did for republicans for decades.) And - "invalidated votes went down" (in one district) in a year, when there should have been more, because of mail voting. (Arguably correct, but if your vote counting guys only have a certain capacity to check - and that stays the same, because you didnt staff more people, that percentage goes down also - so what do you do?).

NONE of the reasonings show actual fraud (so people changing votes, or throwing votes away, or doing something with republican votes, and something else with democratic votes) - to which he then adds, no no - but the fraud then gets layerd in later! (Without proof, without telling how, ... He just proposes it as obviously true.)

NONE of that is 'computer vote' related. Despite in the riling people up part, he is still leading with that.

And if you would actually invalidate those votes - which he only wants to have invalidated in select swing states, that would lead to a bias, because you are looking away on other potential 'voter suppression' and "reverse voter suppression" tactics used by the other side.

If you would look at all of them it would be more high effort than any democratic election ever was in the history of elections in the US, it would take more time, more money and an entirely new ruleset of what is allowed (gerymandering?) and what not. And much more importantly - if it focuses everyones attention on it, and they are allowed to pick the instances they like, but the ones they dont ('if democrats win now, they can change back gerrymandering, so republicans will never win again' - 'If more people get mobilized, this is bad for republicans', ...), you actively make people lose trust in their voting systems - making other countries laugh at democracy.

And for what? For the certain amount of small percentages, in select swingstates, that are just right, if only mike Pence could say, that he doesnt see those results as legitimate, the states could send whichever electoral voters they liked.

ARE YOU INSANE?

Sorry, rhetorical question.


edit3: Then, after giving those examples, which are arguably correct, but dont show voter fraud - he adds a bunch of lies, but only in the end, for good measure.

Like "illegal votes came back in doufflebags", "votes have been backdated", "votes from under the table, which were illegally counted, without supervision" (counting without supervision is legal in that state, if the people supposed to supervise, excuse themselves and leave the room). If he could have made those cases in court - they would have been examples of voter fraud. He wasnt able to. But he still repeats them because - and I quote "you have seen them on TV, right"?

edit4: He uses x amounts of votes cast by people whose names and dates match deceased people for every state - so lets look at that. John Smith is a pretty common name. That might be held by more than one person being born on the same date. Take that knowledge for every common name of over 70 years of people being born, and you can come up with 8.000 people pretty easily. So thats not a metric for voter fraud.

He ends with a litany of "personal misconducts" whitnessed by people who they got with their "seen something, call us!" hotlines, increasing reasons, for why he has lost, probably to about 100 different ones in the end - but none of those testiments were strong enough to grant him one successful court case. He lists them anyways.

edit 5: Oh, and btw. dont you know "The wall is built, by the way - we did a great job." Whaaat? But "Now they want to take it down and let everyone in". He is a magic artiste..! He tells you - the thing that you havent seen, you have seen - but now they are taking it away, so its not there! *Magic* 

Thats slightly after the part where infowars cut in a group of 50 of them marching with large gaps in their rows, but larger black parkers on, into the camera, so you know they strong, and they telling you truth by numbers (of middle aged 50 somethings, marching).

"But now the caravans are forming again, the caravans are forming again!" "Now that they think Bidens getting back in, they want to come in a rip off our country!" (Still with infowars people marching their black parkas march, cut in, by infowars.  )


And here is the start of the ending statement:

"As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth an justice on our side, we have a deep and enduring love for america in our hearts, we love our country, we have overwhealming pride in this great country and we have it deep in our souls, together we are determined to defend and preserve governement of the people, by the people and for the people. Our brightest days are before us. - then he interrupts for rambling again (How great elections were in the past, no one even knew how great elections were back then, ....)..

In retrospect - march your people to the Capitol, f*ck off home, to watch on TV from the couch, and getting four people killed, while having people storm the Capitol lampooning and destroying the offices of state representatives, truely, was the sign of crowd numbers, the thruth and justice you hold, the enduring love for america in your hearts and souls, the government by the people, for the people - and a sign of the brightest days before you.

So bright, by the way - that Pence did nothing of what you proposed and got the f*ck away from you, ten days before the end of your term.

By that time - you have Infowars cutting in Alex Jones shouting with a megaphone at not exactly a crowd, you cant see - while you are unable to hear him, just for the subliminal message, then you have audio cutting out, so you focus on that and not on the president speaking.


edit. Oh, and somewhere in the middle he riled them up with "This is it, this is our last stance, we dont have a backstop anymore, since we have lost Georgia, if we dont win this - they will dismantle america." From memory, so not in those exact words. I'm afraid, you'd have to watch it, if you want to find the direct quote. I'm finished.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jan 8, 2021)

I ain't watching that. Didn't bother with most of Bin Laden's hate speeches either. 
So just out of curiosity : did he mention the Georgia run - offs even once, or was this just all about himself?


----------



## notimp (Jan 8, 2021)

Taleweaver said:


> I ain't watching that. Didn't bother with most of Bin Laden's hate speeches either.
> So just out of curiosity : did he mention the Georgia run - offs even once, or was this just all about himself?


See my last edit, yes - but more in passing. Not sure if he accknowledged the results or put an allegedly in front of them, but he talked about them. From memory, he also said a bunch how wonderful of a person Kelly Loeffler is, and that the vote in Georgia was "a setup". Thats a direct quote, I remember that.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Jan 8, 2021)

Still makes me lmao that they can't understand the fact that the reason Biden "suddenly" won is because mail in votes were counted last and Trump told all his followers to not vote by mail.


----------



## notimp (Jan 8, 2021)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Still makes me lmao that they can't understand the fact that the reason Biden "suddenly" won is because mail in votes were counted last and Trump told all his followers to not vote by mail.


Only partly true. As in yes - totally true, but he also intermixes it with that "and then at 01:15am they came in with a batch that was 94% Biden votes" in one state, which If I remember correctly was explained with "some votes were presorted".

94% (if true) certainly is not 'normal vote distribution'. But then this also is one case, in one state, where he didnt win the legal case made, in front of a court --

and the majority of the rest of that implied allegation is exactly what you posted.

Also its really hard to keep this factual, because he really uses next to 100 individual reasons, mostly ones from peoples statements, that they were misstreated, or told something, to make up the final case. Which is - regardless if you 'prove' that some of our allegations are wrong, we have 50 more to fill the void, and still propose, that the elections were stolen, if the four swingstates, he needs to get the election called, would not accept, that this was voter fraud.

But then he leads with suppression and reverse suppresion attempts. Fills it up with lies. And then fills it up with statements from individual people - that were not enough to make a successful court case.

And more importantly - on the likely voter repression stuff, he only looks at the states where it benefits him, and only at the methods, were it benefits him, and interprets "more votes" as "only democratic votes" in one than more occasion. And counters every factual argument, with essentially another accusation of unknown scale (or scalability). (Most of them are personal statements they got from the (you disgruntled?, please call) hotlines).

So all of it is meant to 'overflow' whatever process of deliberation you have. And then you tell Pence, that the easy way out is to tell certain states, that you send back their electoral votes - and that they can now decide on their own, how to select electoral voters - without looking at the public vote.

And he thought, to the very end - that this would work.

For at least four states simultaniously. While he is telling people, removing the results of the democratic process is "protecting the constitution". And that to force this, you need a display of strength, witch is why we now march to the capitol.
--


There is also another very possible interpretation, that relies on him mentioning several times, that if this doesnt work, its Mike Pences fault. That coupled with  the ENTIRELY CONVINCING (not) argument proposed to Pence on why he should do what he has to do, not because its courageous, but because it is easy --- simply means, they expected this to fizzle out, they wanted the far right to have their symbolic identification moment, and then take this and build an opposition movement out of it.

So playing with fire to the very end - is even more likely. Because maybe Trump believed his own BS (the only thing this needs is a display of power to convince republicans) in the end, but he still has advisors that would have to have said something.


----------



## XDel (Jan 8, 2021)

I like how the media plays psychic like they can read trump's mind, and how the sheep just bow in agreement as if they KNOW some fact too.


----------



## notimp (Jan 9, 2021)

XDel said:


> I like how the media plays psychic like they can read trump's mind, and how the sheep just bow in agreement as if they KNOW some fact too.


Regardless of that prophetic interpretation (sheep goes *ba baaa*).

I'm almost forced to side with the side that didnt need 100 different interpretations of 'why it was stolen from you', starting with voting repression plays (which I could understand if they were in play) - and ending up with individual statements, president got via hotline, he wasnt able to follow up on - and that differed in method so strongly, his best case was to actually list close to 100 different methods, on how this election was stolen from him.

Some of which - clearly - are nonsense (in as much as he forgets to mention that an increased voter potential (lets say in numbers of ballots sent out), is not a certain outcome). Without taking into account scalability of certain other schemes at all. In fact the reverse is true. The more unscalable certain schemes seemed to be, the more weight he seemed to lay on them as being proof. Even though he probably didnt lead with those in court cases.
-

If you want to make a clear conspiracy narrative out of it, I guess you can, with 100 accusations there is enough doubt that sticks - somewhere. But its the 'clear' narrative thats missing.

Also - if you want to go real conspiracy nuts, focusing on why at the point they ACTUALLY marched on the Capitol it escalated into something neither Trump nor his followers wanted, is probably more worthwhile. Imho.

But now I'm giving tips to conspiracy theorists, which probably is a bad idea. 



Also - and this is certain, beyond doubt - parts of his speech where deliberately badly written, so they'd turn out as boasting or pure nonsense when read. This undercut the message, if there ever was one (under the 100 reasons given).

Just fyi.

And now I stop sympathising with your kin.


----------



## XDel (Jan 9, 2021)

If this election were a football game, the playback would have been slowed down and replayed until all doubt had been resolved


----------



## notimp (Jan 9, 2021)

XDel said:


> If this election were a football game, the playback would have been slowed down and replayed until all doubt had been resolved


Then democracy probably would have been dead. As well as football (but the european one, which depends on its fast paced nature, and is not reliant on commercial breaks at fixed 10 minute intervals (so the judges can look over the material, over and over again)).


----------

