Trump/Republican Coup Thread

[Zaune]

Honestly, the guy's probably only doing it to be disruptive and/or keep his name in the media anyway. Tying up the prison system's greivance process with spurious, trivial nonsense is one of the few avenues of civil disobedience currently open to him.

[loomer]

My religion requires that I eat lobster, Champaign and caviar at least once a week

And if it is a sincere religious requirement and one that can be met within the budget without creating a safety risk or a problem with rehabilitation (which will necessarily complicate the champagne, but not necessarily prohibit it - see those prisons that permit communion wine for religious services)... Why shouldn't that be accommodated, precisely? I know you're being flippant, but - why not?

Seriously tough, a prison isn't a hotel that offers a large daily buffet where its guests can pick and choose the food according to their preferences.

Yes. However, a prison does have an obligation to meet human rights standards, which include the right to practice one's religion, which includes religious food preferences. Do you disagree with any of these statements?

While I'm all in favour of prisons offering healthy food and a vegetarian alternative, it's practically not feasible to appease to everyone's personal religious preferences/superstitions. Serving non-organic food isn't the same as serving poison, neither is serving non-halal/non-kosher food.

Serving non-halal or non-kosher food to Muslim or Jewish inmates respectively is placing those inmates under undue psychological distress and interfering with their right to practice their religion. Do you disagree with this statement?

If the prison has to adjust it's menu in order to appease to each and every single lifestyle and religion then eventually you'd have a very limited menu that would in turn be discriminating towards prisoners that like to eat things like pork or beef now and then.

Prisons can, and do, offer multiple menus without enormous difficulty, and no one is suggesting that the diet of every prisoner should be informed by the standards of religious groups within that prison - only that those groups and their members should have their dietary restrictions accommodated where possible. It's made more difficult by budgetary constraints and people wanting to punish the wrongdoer rather than pursue rehabilitation, but the simple reality is that a, imprisoned persons have the right to practice their religion, and b, dietary restrictions are a common religious tenet that either cannot be violated or that can be violated only under grave circumstances and that c, it follows from a that accommodations for b ought to be made. The first is a human right, the second an element of the exercise of that right, and the third the necessary action to respect and maintain that human right. It is a matter that the state has assumed responsibility for, and it should not be trivialized.

Honestly, the guy's probably only doing it to be disruptive and/or keep his name in the media anyway. Tying up the prison system's greivance process with spurious, trivial nonsense is one of the few avenues of civil disobedience currently open to him.

Yup, but that's a pretty standard part of how imprisoned people react to their circumstances. If it turns out he's a bullshitter and gets caught out buying ramen then strip his dietary privileges - that's how it goes pretty frequently, anyway.

[Broomstick]

Eating organic food is literally part of the Nazi ideal and has remained a major point of far-right ideology, so - no surprise there. See e.g. Treitel, 'Nature and the Nazi Diet' 2009 Food and Foodways 17(3) 139. The same is also true of the assumption and appropriation of myths and religious customs from other peoples. In this respect, Mr. 'Shaman' is pretty textbook, albeit of the modern semi-autonomous form of neo-nazi spirituality (and yes - that is a whole thing) rather than the forms predicated on initiatory circles.

Let him starve himself to the point he needs to be hospitalized, put him on IVs, and repeat. Its his choice if he wants to suffer.

There is a moral obligation on all of us who want a fair and decent society to ensure that any person under the custody of the state - if we are to maintain that institution - is given adequate food and healthcare. While we might roll our eyes, it is not moral to deny him or any other prisoner food fit for their dietary needs, whether they be physical or elements of a sincerely held spiritual position (and not even if we find that spiritual position repugnant).

Cruelty is not now, and will never be, the moral position.

The US prison system, for all its flaws, does recognize that people can have special dietary needs. Halal, kosher, vegan meals for Jains, beef-free for Hindus... these are all supplied although I am told (by a doctor I know who works for the State of Wisconsin overseeing prisoner medical needs, and people I know who are former convicts who have served time in several states) that under such diets the menu options are limited and get boring quickly, but it's not like regular prison fare offers a lot of choices, either. Any prisoner requiring a specific diet for medical reasons will also have it provided.

That said, Mr. Q Shaman needs to communicate if he has special needs to those holding him. Otherwise they have no way to distinguish between him and people who don't eat because they're upset at being held.

There is also the problem that there is no legal definition of "organic food" in the US.

In sum: I agree, a prisoners medical and spiritual needs absolutely should be accommodated but I am skeptical that this guy belongs to a religion that requires an organic diet.

For those inclined to read, more behind the spoiler. And yeah, the spoiler doesn't seem to be functioning well so you'll have to quote this post to see it, but hey, at least it's not inflicted on anyone who hates long posts.
Spoiler

Prisoners refusing to eat are noted and observed, but the normal procedure is to continue to offer food while asking why the prisoner isn't eating. If the answer is "I'm Muslim and only eat halal" then provide halal food. If the person says they have a medical condition they will be examined by a doctor and/or medical records will be requested and if there is a medical need it will be accommodated. If that continues then there might be medical intervention if the person's life is endangered and yes, that might include being strapped down and given intravenous fluid and nutrients. Not because they're being mean, or want to torture anyone, but because the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the government is obligated to care for those in custody (yes, I'm aware this isn't always followed as it should be), including people that aren't well liked and those that may self-harm. People are allowed to refuse a meal, or fast for awhile, but they are not allowed to hunger-strike themselves to death.

However, people do go on hunger strikes to attempt to manipulate the system, from demanding special treatment to attempts to say they aren't healthy enough to remain in prison. It's not unknown for other prisoners to smuggle food to a prisoner refusing food, which leads to someone who isn't eating who also isn't losing weight. Is that what is going on? I have no idea.

So... his mommy says he's not eating and his tummy needs special organic food. Color me skeptical. I mean sure, it might be possible but the truth is we don't really know what's going on with him and given he's a middle-class, conservative white guy he's at less risk of mistreatment than a person who is poor or brown. Mom said that to get sympathy for her boy but it backfired. It just makes him look even more like an unconsciously privileged white asshole.

I'll also note that Q-Shaman's torso tattoos are Norse imagery - which is not a religion that requires organic food. His Facebook account was replete with references to "Jesus", which implies Christianity of some sort and, again, no Christian denomination requires organic food. If he's a Seventh Day Adventist he could probably get a vegetarian diet since that's such a common practice among that group, but again, no requirement for organic. Mormons can not be given fluids in the form of coffee or tea but the alternative doesn't have to be more than plain water. Hari Krishnas can demand foods free of onions or garlic due to their religion prohibitions. Rinse and repeat.

Actually, quite a few of the Norse/Heathen communities are pretty pissed off at the appropriation of their imagery by White Supremacists and Nazis. I can't figure out if those horns are supposed to be something Viking or something Native, but if the latter I mean, damn, dude looks White to me and he's supporting a piece of human slime that has no respect for anyone other that rich White people so I'm skeptical he could fall under "Native American protesting injustice". He could be Native, some tribes, particularly those with origins on the Eastern coast of North America, can be mistaken for White but damn that dude is hairy, which is much more an European trait. It's also possible he was adopted into a tribe as that is possible with some of them, but he hasn't made any claim to be such. He's looks like just another White asshole into New Age mysticism picking and choosing bits from other religions and cultures like he's at an all-you-can-eat buffet someone else is paying for. Which, in accordance with freedom of expression and religion he is legally allowed to do in this country even if it is morally and ethically repugnant to a lot of other people but goddamn it makes him look like an asshole.

[Broomstick]

Facebook and Twitter could be sued for “censorship” under proposed state law

North Dakota bill would let users sue social-media sites for blocking posts.
JON BRODKIN - 1/13/2021, 11:38 AM

Republican state lawmakers in North Dakota want Facebook and Twitter to face lawsuits from users who have been "censored."

... [snip] trimmed for space, bounce back to that post if you want to read all of that content [/snip]...

There is considerable legal precedent that private entities - and social media companies are indeed that - are NOT required to adhere to the First Amendment to the extent the government is required. In other words, no, you do NOT have free speech on a forum owned by a private entity.

This is where these fucktards ideology trips them up. They don't want the government providing services, but don't understand they have fewer rights when those services are provided by private companies. If Facebook was government owned and controlled they would have a legal footing to demand their content be posted. It's not, though. Zuckerberg is allowed to ban any speech or expression he doesn't like, it's entirely legal. The asshats are all for the magic of the free market and private enterprise until it has an effect they don't like. Which just shows, once again, it's all about them getting their dicks sucked and nothing else.

[loomer]

Snip

Oh yeah, he's almost certainly full of shit and definitely a neonazi, and I'm one of the heathens who's more than a little cranky at the prick for plastering our symbols all over his body while he does his bullshit. If and when he's caught out eating non-organic food from the commissary, they can and ought to revoke his dietary privileges, but until then - full of shit as he may be - he ought to be accorded humane treatment including dietary accommodations required for his religious practices, which every imprisoned person should be receiving.

Facebook and Twitter could be sued for “censorship” under proposed state law

North Dakota bill would let users sue social-media sites for blocking posts.
JON BRODKIN - 1/13/2021, 11:38 AM

Republican state lawmakers in North Dakota want Facebook and Twitter to face lawsuits from users who have been "censored."

... [snip] trimmed for space, bounce back to that post if you want to read all of that content [/snip]...

There is considerable legal precedent that private entities - and social media companies are indeed that - are NOT required to adhere to the First Amendment to the extent the government is required. In other words, no, you do NOT have free speech on a forum owned by a private entity.

This is where these fucktards ideology trips them up. They don't want the government providing services, but don't understand they have fewer rights when those services are provided by private companies. If Facebook was government owned and controlled they would have a legal footing to demand their content be posted. It's not, though. Zuckerberg is allowed to ban any speech or expression he doesn't like, it's entirely legal. The asshats are all for the magic of the free market and private enterprise until it has an effect they don't like. Which just shows, once again, it's all about them getting their dicks sucked and nothing else.

The censorship issue is has been producing some introducing arguments that social media is now essentially a public utility that should be regulated and/or nationalized accordingly (under which Trump could still be silenced under various public safety grounds), but as you say - their ideology prevents them from understanding that that would be a stronger argument.

[Broomstick]

Now, as it happens, Angeli will receive his organic diet in prison. This is a good start - next, we need to ensure that all prisoners receive the appropriate diet to maintain their human rights.

Hey, if a judge - who is far more likely to have access to details that we don't - has decreed that Q-shaman does have a religious belief requiring organic food and he is to be accommodated I'm OK with that. In that case, it's a case of the system properly working. At his point I can be as skeptical I want about him but I will absolutely support his dietary requirements being accommodated as required by the legal/judicial system.

I'm assuming that either some evidence that Q-shaman has been indeed practicing this diet for some time was provided or he really has been fasting for the better part of a week which would show some sincerity about his beliefs. But I don't really know. Then again, it doesn't matter what I know as I am not involved in his care. I don't wish him harm, even if I don't want him participating in insurrection and violent government overthrow, either.

[Crazedwraith]

Legal Eagle on incitement

Just one lawyer's opinion. Basically he considers it very unlikely Trump would be considered guilty of incitement in the legal sense, as he never explicitly called for direct illegal action by the letter of his speeches and tweets on the day, and political speech is obviously highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

While still considering him morally responsible and impeachable regardless because well, everything else he's said has a clear and predictable effect on what was going to happen.

[Broomstick]

Is it not insanity to die in the face of perfectly safe treatment of a common condition? Would you accept the same refusal if it came from a point of view not influenced by religion? How about if that refusal was instead for a dependant?

In the United States any mentally competent adult is allowed to refuse any medical treatment, even if that refusal would result in death. "Mentally competent" doesn't necessarily mean "lacking mental illness" as one can have a mental illness AND still be competent to handle one's affairs. That is why when someone is admitted to a hospital if it is at all possible to ask the person "are there any treatments you would object to?" that question is asked. If the patient can't answer then the next of kin is asked, which I know from experience. You are not required to give the basis for that rejection. "I don't want to be intubated under any circumstance" is given just as much consideration as "I don't want to receive any blood or blood products". It doesn't matter if the source of that refusal is logic, religion, or simply a really strong distaste for the treatment.

This also applies to prisoners, although exercising that right for them might be more difficult because the penal system sucks in a lot of ways.

Dependents and those not mentally competent are a different categories which Q-shaman does not fall under.

[Broomstick]

Oh yeah, he's almost certainly full of shit and definitely a neonazi, and I'm one of the heathens who's more than a little cranky at the prick for plastering our symbols all over his body while he does his bullshit. If and when he's caught out eating non-organic food from the commissary, they can and ought to revoke his dietary privileges, but until then - full of shit as he may be - he ought to be accorded humane treatment including dietary accommodations required for his religious practices, which every imprisoned person should be receiving.

Hitler was a vegetarian, so it's possible to be both a slimeball Nazi AND have sincerely held dietary beliefs. As also noted upthread, some neo-Nazis are vegetarians because Hitler was. In such cases I would have to argue (as much as it makes me throw up a little in the back of my throat) that vegetarianism IS part of their sincerely held belief system and should be accommodated to the extent possible.

I would be vastly amused in a very dark way if Q-shaman stood in front of a judge and said "Your honor, it's because of my White Supremacist and Nazi beliefs that I eat this way" and that's the basis for his getting an organic diet.

The measure of how ethical you are isn't based on what you do when the doing is easy, it's how you behave when doing the right thing is hard. It's hard to be kind/humane to people who are violent and harmful, but it's the moral thing to do. As much as I had the usual vicious and visceral emotional reaction when this attempted coup occurred (because I'm human), I can not condone mistreatment of the perpetrators. We need to be better than they are.

[Broomstick]

Legal Eagle on incitement

Just one lawyer's opinion. Basically he considers it very unlikely Trump would be considered guilty of incitement in the legal sense, as he never explicitly called for direct illegal action by the letter of his speeches and tweets on the day, and political speech is obviously highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

While still considering him morally responsible and impeachable regardless because well, everything else he's said has a clear and predictable effect on what was going to happen.

I watched that last night.

Trump has had decades to hone his ability to instigate and threaten without overstepping legal lines. He's good at it.

But not everything has to be upheld to the standards of a criminal trial. Impeachment is one of those things. The court of public opinion is another, as Trump is discovering.

Or, as another president once said "You can fool some of the people all the of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

[Crazedwraith]

Legal Eagle on incitement

Just one lawyer's opinion. Basically he considers it very unlikely Trump would be considered guilty of incitement in the legal sense, as he never explicitly called for direct illegal action by the letter of his speeches and tweets on the day, and political speech is obviously highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

While still considering him morally responsible and impeachable regardless because well, everything else he's said has a clear and predictable effect on what was going to happen.

I watched that last night.

Trump has had decades to hone his ability to instigate and threaten without overstepping legal lines. He's good at it.

But not everything has to be upheld to the standards of a criminal trial. Impeachment is one of those things. The court of public opinion is another, as Trump is discovering.

Or, as another president once said "You can fool some of the people all the of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

Imdeed, the strength and weakness of impeachment is that as the video said 'it's a political answer to a political problem' so it doesn't have to be proven to the standards of a criminal trial but on the flipside even it was the senate may not vote to convict for political reasons. Even if they wait until Trumps gone and the Dems have a majority they still need some republicans to vote against 'their' guy since I beleive it's 2/3 majority to impeach?

Now you think given they've lost the house and senate under Trump now and he arguably sent people to purge anyone that wasn't a 100% behind him they would turn on him, but I don't know if there's been much signs of it yet.

[Broomstick]

Yes, it's 2/3 majority of the Senate to impeach.

So what? The statement needs to be made. Impeach the bastard and send the matter to the Senate.

[Crazedwraith]

Yes, it's 2/3 majority of the Senate to impeach.

So what? The statement needs to be made. Impeach the bastard and send the matter to the Senate.

No argument from me. I never said they shouldn't do it.

[Broomstick]

Hey, speaking of free speech -


A search for "Donald Trump" on Facebook at the time of this writing uncovers a profile which is very much the soon-to-be-ex-PotUS. I reported the profile. I'm not saying what anyone else should do, but I for one do not want him to circumvent his lifetime ban.

[wautd]

My religion requires that I eat lobster, Champaign and caviar at least once a week

And if it is a sincere religious requirement and one that can be met within the budget without creating a safety risk or a problem with rehabilitation (which will necessarily complicate the champagne, but not necessarily prohibit it - see those prisons that permit communion wine for religious services)... Why shouldn't that be accommodated, precisely? I know you're being flippant, but - why not?

Seriously tough, a prison isn't a hotel that offers a large daily buffet where its guests can pick and choose the food according to their preferences.

Yes. However, a prison does have an obligation to meet human rights standards, which include the right to practice one's religion, which includes religious food preferences. Do you disagree with any of these statements?

Agree

While I'm all in favour of prisons offering healthy food and a vegetarian alternative, it's practically not feasible to appease to everyone's personal religious preferences/superstitions. Serving non-organic food isn't the same as serving poison, neither is serving non-halal/non-kosher food.

Serving non-halal or non-kosher food to Muslim or Jewish inmates respectively is placing those inmates under undue psychological distress and interfering with their right to practice their religion. Do you disagree with this statement?

If the prison has to adjust it's menu in order to appease to each and every single lifestyle and religion then eventually you'd have a very limited menu that would in turn be discriminating towards prisoners that like to eat things like pork or beef now and then.

Prisons can, and do, offer multiple menus without enormous difficulty, and no one is suggesting that the diet of every prisoner should be informed by the standards of religious groups within that prison - only that those groups and their members should have their dietary restrictions accommodated where possible. It's made more difficult by budgetary constraints and people wanting to punish the wrongdoer rather than pursue rehabilitation, but the simple reality is that a, imprisoned persons have the right to practice their religion, and b, dietary restrictions are a common religious tenet that either cannot be violated or that can be violated only under grave circumstances and that c, it follows from a that accommodations for b ought to be made. The first is a human right, the second an element of the exercise of that right, and the third the necessary action to respect and maintain that human right. It is a matter that the state has assumed responsibility for, and it should not be trivialized.

I can pretty much agree with you. If, as you and Broomstick mentioned, that US prisons can indeed practically offer multiple menus to accommodate different needs then I don't see much wrong with it.
I do have more issues regarding ritually slaughtered meat (despite what the kosher/halal lobby says, not stunning the animal before slaughter does cause unnecessary suffering, and religious superstition should not trump animal rights). However, that's getting way off-topic and not relevant to this tread

[wautd]

Legal Eagle on incitement

Just one lawyer's opinion. Basically he considers it very unlikely Trump would be considered guilty of incitement in the legal sense, as he never explicitly called for direct illegal action by the letter of his speeches and tweets on the day, and political speech is obviously highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

While still considering him morally responsible and impeachable regardless because well, everything else he's said has a clear and predictable effect on what was going to happen.

Even if he never explicitly called for direct illegal action, the fact that he did nothing to try to calm down the mob during the Capitol assault pissed me off even more.

[Broomstick]

I can pretty much agree with you. If, as you and Broomstick mentioned, that US prisons can indeed practically offer multiple menus to accommodate different needs then I don't see much wrong with it.

Well... there's theory and then there is practice. There have been issues with implementing this right in various parts of the penal system, but that's a different issue.

I do have more issues regarding ritually slaughtered meat (despite what the kosher/halal lobby says, not stunning the animal before slaughter does cause unnecessary suffering, and religious superstition should not trump animal rights). However, that's getting way off-topic and not relevant to this tread

I don't know about halal and Muslim dietary policy, but it is entirely possible to supply a meat-free kosher diet. Indeed, many Jews choose that option of their own will so it is, in theory, possible to accommodate both your viewpoint and Jewish dietary laws at the same time. A hypothetical Jewish prisoner might not be happy with a meat-free diet, but hey, it sucks to be a convict at times. Is the food wholesome, nourishing, and complies with religious requirements? OK, there ya go. If you don't like it you can choose to skip that meal.

In reality, I don't see ritually slaughtered meat being barred from US prisons at this time.

The ritual slaughter rules of halal and kosher were, ironically, the humane choice when they were first instituted and eliminated some pretty nasty practices, but society has moved on since then.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Legal Eagle on incitement

Just one lawyer's opinion. Basically he considers it very unlikely Trump would be considered guilty of incitement in the legal sense, as he never explicitly called for direct illegal action by the letter of his speeches and tweets on the day, and political speech is obviously highly protected by the 1st Amendment.

While still considering him morally responsible and impeachable regardless because well, everything else he's said has a clear and predictable effect on what was going to happen.

As has been said; Trump is very good at hinting, winking, and nodding; and is capable of doing so for years in pursuit of his end-goal (anyone remember how often he's "joked" about having more than two terms?) It's very clear that what happened last week was roughly in-line with what Trump wanted to happen (though I imagine he was hoping the Beer Belly Putsch would've been more successful.)

Not, of course, that any of it matters ... Washington's returned to business-as-usual, and impeachment will narrowly pass the House on a party-line vote (with, optimistically, a dozen Republicans ... less than six percent ... crossing the aisle;) and die along party lines in the Senate (the trial won't happen until after Biden's inauguration ... lots of time for the Republicans saying they're considering impeachment now to have few bruising fights over Biden Cabinet confirmations and the Biden legislative agenda to make them reconsider.)

[Solauren]

With the 'lawsuits for violation of First Amendment rights' crap in North Dakota;

It's my understanding the 'Freedom of Speech' ONLY applies to censorship by the government.
Which is why people can still use for libel and slander.

Arguing that Social Media is now a public utility is also pretty unlikely to succeed. The reason being - to be 'public', it has to be owned by the government. Social Media is still private enterprise, they are just open to anyone they haven't banned. Much like a restaurant, or store.

In order to make any given form of Social Media a public utility, the government would have to by ownership of it.

And if the United States government made steps to purchased Facebook, I would promptly look for another platform, encourage everyone I know to switch to it, and then close my Facebook account and then sue them to have anything I ever posted removed and permanetly deleted. And I bet you so would 90% of it's user base. Same with any other social media that had the government move to purchase them.

(I don't care if the Canadian government knows what I'm doing, because really, I'm probably very boring to anyone just observing me, and the Canadian Government signs my paychecks, but the United States government can go fuck themselves with what I'm doing until I'm within their borders, or the Canadian government shares security concerns about me with them.)

In fact, I could see social media platforms like mad, waiting to become popular to the point the US government moved to purchase them to make them a public utility.

Also, I can imagine, without adrevenue, how much it would cost to maintain Facebook and other social media sites as a public utility.
Then there is also the issue of foreign nationals. You could make the argument that a US Government owned social media site should only be accessible by US citizens.

Really, any effort to turn/classify existing social media in/as a public utility would be a complete nightmare.

[The Infidel]

That was a lot of posts about food...

I can't find the source right now, but I think I read that a poll stated that about 50% of the republicans were sympathetic to the storming? WTF? Please tell me this isn't true. This could explain why so many senators still don't want trump impeached: They're afraid of losing voters?

[Raw Shark]

I can't find the source right now, but I think I read that a poll stated that about 50% of the republicans were sympathetic to the storming? WTF? Please tell me this isn't true.

Okay, I won't tell you.

But seriously, I have to wonder how those same sympathizers, who are in many cases also the Blue Lives Matter crowd, are handling the cognitive dissonance of juggling those two positions right now, considering the rioters beat a cop to death.

[Khaat]

GOP voters are like any other machine, they're either a benefit or a hazard... No, wait: garbage in, garbage out. Yeah, that.

[Broomstick]

With the 'lawsuits for violation of First Amendment rights' crap in North Dakota;

It's my understanding the 'Freedom of Speech' ONLY applies to censorship by the government.
Which is why people can still use for libel and slander.

That is correct.

Arguing that Social Media is now a public utility is also pretty unlikely to succeed. The reason being - to be 'public', it has to be owned by the government. Social Media is still private enterprise, they are just open to anyone they haven't banned. Much like a restaurant, or store.

That is also correct, with the caveat there are a few differences between businesses like restaurants and hotels and social media.

Then there is also the issue of foreign nationals. You could make the argument that a US Government owned social media site should only be accessible by US citizens.

On the other hand, the US does allow everyone else to use the GPS satellite system. You could make the argument for "US only" but I don't think that would occur. Too many Americans have ties overseas

Really, any effort to turn/classify existing social media in/as a public utility would be a complete nightmare.

This is also true.

[Broomstick]

That was a lot of posts about food...

Yeah, well, nothing was happening in Congress during that interlude, so....

I can't find the source right now, but I think I read that a poll stated that about 50% of the republicans were sympathetic to the storming? WTF? Please tell me this isn't true. This could explain why so many senators still don't want trump impeached: They're afraid of losing voters?

Yep, something like that. That is correct. I've seen percentages between 40-60% but yeah, there's a bunch of folks out there who think insurrection is a grand idea.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

That was a lot of posts about food...

I can't find the source right now, but I think I read that a poll stated that about 50% of the republicans were sympathetic to the storming? WTF? Please tell me this isn't true. This could explain why so many senators still don't want trump impeached: They're afraid of losing voters?

Really more like 45%, and 43% opposed it.

I think I've, technically, told you it wasn't true. Just don't go reading between the lines and realize that, of those willing to take a position, more Republicans supported it than opposed it ...