@sillystring@infosec.exchange

> I mean look at the turn over. As a business person he is terrible.

I never said he was a good businessman or even a good president. He was horrible at both, Biden just happens to be far worse.

With that said he had a signficantly better impact on both the stock exchange and the unemployment rate than Biden's run as Vice President, right up until the coronavirus. But it would be foolish to compare a complete economic shutdown under Trump to any other period in time, the fallout from that is inevitable. Even so aside from doing much better than Biden pre-coronavirus his unemployment rate recovery after the bulk of the epidemic was at a higher rate than we have ever seen from any other economic crash in history.

Trump literally hit two records as president that havent been matched in the lifetime of anyone living: 1) he managed to get the unemployment rate to the lowest it has been in living history 2) he managed to see the fastest recovery of unemployment following an economic crash of any incident in history.

While I wouldnt say these two facts make him a good president, credit where credit is due, and there isnt much Biden has ever accomplished worthy of any praise, and a **lot** he has done horrifically wrong.

> Biden is superior by merely not instigating mayhem.

I wouldnt say that describes him or the democrats any more or less than Trump.

We certainly had some isolated cases of violence at teh capital, and that isn't acceptable, but trump was one of the very first people to get on the TV and tell them that violence was unacceptable.

Meanwhile I spent the bulk of the year watching democrat protests burn down buildings and cop cars in my city tot he point that the sky was black with smoke. I didnt see biden decrying those incidents or calling out the violence at all.

@SmilingTexan

@freemo
Wait, you still believe Trump>Biden? I have hoped a literal coup attempt would be enough to change that.
@sillystring@infosec.exchange @SmilingTexan

@timorl @freemo @sillystring @SmilingTexan
>literal coup attempt
50 unarmed people waddling into a building and taking selfies isn't a coup attempt.

@antigravman
1. They were armed enough to kill a couple people and had equipment for taking hostages.
2. The building in question was holding an event that was part of the process of a change in power they disapproved of.
3. They explicitly expressed the intent of killing one of the main people leading that event.

Yes, this was a coup attempt.
@sillystring@infosec.exchange @freemo @SmilingTexan

@timorl @sillystring @freemo @SmilingTexan
>kill a couple people
Only person killed with a weapon inside the Capitol Building was one of the protesters.

>The building in question was holding an event that was part of the process of a change in power they disapproved of.
Still not a coup. Unless you think those people were going to somehow replace Congress. In that case you're legitimately crazy.

>They explicitly expressed the intent of killing one of the main people leading that event.
Who is "they"? Where is your source that this was an organized attempt to overthrow Congress and the US government?

@antigravman
So as long as someone is killed without the use of weapons it doesn't count?

I don't know what would have happened if they captured (and possibly killed) the people involved in the certification. I doubt they would have succeeded in keeping Trump in power, but it's not obvious. And a poorly planned coup is still a coup.

The protesters among whom the people who attempted the coup were. If they didn't attempt the coup later I would have assumed this was terrible political posturing (which should be condemned, but is within their rights), but since they attempted to execute the threat it's hard to dismiss it as such.

I can provide sources for any of the facts that I am stating, if you don't believe in some.
@sillystring@infosec.exchange @freemo @SmilingTexan

@timorl @sillystring @freemo @SmilingTexan
>So as long as someone is killed without the use of weapons it doesn't count?
You said they were armed and killed people. They weren't and they didn't.
The FACT is the only person besides protesters who were "killed" was a police officer who while away from the Capitol was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher and died suddenly the following day due to a stroke caused by a blood clot.
>I don't know what would have happened if they captured (and possibly killed) the people involved in the certification.
You realize the cops were in and about with the protesters as they entered the Capitol right?
You realize the protesters left after they got bored right?
That's not what happens in a coup attempt.
> I doubt they would have succeeded in keeping Trump in power, but it's not obvious. And a poorly planned coup is still a coup.
You're fucking insane to think this was a coup. This is Q-anon level insane conspiracy shit.
50 unarmed people attempting a coup versus the Capitol Police, DC Police, and Secret Service. And to top it off, instead of a coup they were satisfied and left after party crashing in the Capitol?

Take your meds schizo.

@antigravman
I said armed enough to kill (my point was killing doesn't require weapons), and they killed a person. Although I wasn't aware they only injured him initially.

What do you think would have happened if they managed to get to the House chamber before it was evacuated? In particular what would they have used the
zip handcuffs for?

At the point where it was clear they wouldn't get to anyone important what were they supposed to do? The coup failed and it clearly was a terrible attempt, but still an attempt.

@sillystring@infosec.exchange @freemo @SmilingTexan

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.