>

His priorities are that it's more important to influence the media than to condemn violence. If we flip that, does he think it's permissible to use violence if it would influence the media? 
The only surprising thing is how fast American Politics has cratered. I feel like it was on a steady decline before the Trump Presidency accelerated it beyond expectation. Hopefully we can rebound from here.
Every president in history has defended the orderly transfer of authority except one.
Donald  Trump  refused  his constitutional duty to transfer  power to Joe Biden.
Nothing  that happened woild have happened  if it hadn't been for Donald Trump. >

He told us before in debates with Hillary he had no intention of respecting democracy or the  orderly transition of power. Americans still voted for him. >

For them it was a feature, not a bug. >

Who would have thought that the right would turn on the constitution so quickly. They literally made worshiping it a core aspect of their personality. >

*whenever it suits them! >

The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it." - Billy Graham >

Oh, fuck Billy Graham. >

It's not that the media would have won, but the Republican anti reality the GOP created for its voters to live in would have been contradicted. >

This. It's a break in the cult's messaging. Reality would come crashing into the false narrative Conservatives have cultivated over the past 30 years with Fox News, AM radio, the right wing noise machine, and an entire industry of grifters. >

Exactly. The truth could not be spoken out loud without shining a light on all the contradictory lies. >

Whoop de fucking do.
So what if the media "wins"? All that would've happened is that Jan 7 would be dedicated to how the insurrection failed, the things Trump did, then turn to the upcoming inauguration.
Sure, the punditsphere would be buzzing for weeks, but that will be about it. The NYTimes, WaPo, and others wouldn't go through the trouble of rehashing history without real context that the public needs, or should, know. >

Yeah, let's put it on the footsoldiers and staffers, not on the leaders. >

Fuck your cult >

Of course because who cares about the fact Trump ended a 246 year long tradition of the peaceful power of transfer? A cornerstone in any republic. >

No.
That's not how the civil war started. It wasn't the losing incumbent president refuting the outcome and whipping up a crowd to attack the process of certifying the next president who was legally elected. >

Different situation.
No one refuted the election
Comment was about peaceful transition between presidents.
You are moving the goal posts to make them the same. >

It's not the same situation, but it's certainly not different enough to not count. Had the seccession worked well enough to fight to a standstill, the south would have elected their own leader rather than accept Lincoln. Had they somehow defeated the north, they would have replaced Lincoln entirely and probably rewritten the constitution to make it stick. >

OP point was Trump was the first non peaceful transition of power between presidents.
Buchanan had nothing to do with the Civil War outside of his own inaction to stop things.
You guys are all widening the scope of things when all OPs point is Trump is the first sitting president to ask for a civil war to reinstall them as president after losing an election. That is 100% true and that is not how the civil war started. >

I'm still trying to understand what the media would have won. >

A mystery box. It could even be a boat. >

You gotta see it from McCarthy's perspective.
If he shows he has a backbone, people will start expecting it more.
He's a joke and his 2yrs as speaker will be meme fodder for decades to come. >

His congressional district is one of the most violent, drunk, uneducated, disease ridden, most polluted places in America. Surprisingly, this coincides with it also being heavily filled with reactionary MAGA crazies. McCarthy knows there’s a crazier Republican in the wings who’d primary him in a second if he “moderated” his stance in any way. He’s not that good of a politician and he’s too much of a coward to actually weather the wrath of his own constituents. >

GOP politicians always at war with the media instead of doing what’s right for the people. This is why they lose in court, because they’re more concerned with “public opinion” than facts. >

The GOP is like a 5 year old caught in a lie, refusing to admit guilt or apologize. >

Cons hate America. >

They really can't see beyond their petty culture wars. >

Must trigger the libs at all costs >

Why can't these douchebags fight something useful like mosquitos or AIDS or something that would benefit mankind instead of making up dumb shit to fight about? >

This is another way of far-righters saying they can ill afford to lose the vote of ignoramuses like Ashli Babbitt and Ricky Shiffer. >

What is amazing (to me) as they failed to comprehend that this was not about "media" this was about actual voter's.     DJT  used that ploy as well "only some votes should be counted".  Sure sounds like Putin and his fellow autocrats. >

They've almost completely devolved into standing for nothing but "owning the libs," which they wrongly include the media as part of.
"Almost," because they do believe in power and money for themselves, and they'll sometimes set aside owning the libs in the short term if it helps them gain money or consolidate power. See, eg, nominating and electing Glenn Youngkin as VA Governor. >

So McCarthy only hires the best people too. Any in prison yet? >

I am sad that this is what passes for leadership to Republicans. >

"Never mind integrity or truth! Let's be sociopaths instead!' >

I don’t understand the level of stupidity in US politics during and post Trump. As an outsider it was already a shitshow before Trump, but not to this insane scale. >

Did you still expect anything else from the party of weak, thin-skinned, selfish, ignorant, dishonest men? >

It's not about whether the media wins or not.  It's about whether America wins or not.  I think republicans and their conservative media, in their rush to own the libs, often forgets that the whole of America is frequently watching.  And the whole of America does not like radical policies from either side of the aisle.  Most often these days that radicalism comes from the Right.  So those on the Right should read this as something they need to rid themselves of.  And those on the Left should hope this affliction does not jump to them. >

Nice both sides argument /s
Republicans have lost their mind and are embracing fascism. >

How do you see this as a both sides argument?  Try reading it with less bias.  I think you'll find a different view. >

Why are you even talking about the radical, far left? Such a thing doesnt exist in America. 
Asking people not to be racist, homophobic and wanting  public healthcare is pretty centrist.
Please tell me, what are these radical far left policies that Americans dont embrace? Give me some examples of far left radicalism please? >

Removing guns from those that have them.  Not smart.  Stricter gun control measures?  Smart.  Taking guns from law abiding citizens?  Not smart.  I can name several prominent Democrats that favor that.
Pushing Green energy to the extent your power grid routinely fails.  California, please stand up and take a bow.  Using Green Energy when it is capable of filling grid needs?  Smart.  Replacing entire sections of grid with unproven technology?  Not smart.
These are only a couple of things the Left promotes that much of America is against as an absolute immediate measure but would be more willing to accept as a slower, more thoughtful, policy.
I'm a liberal.  A Democrat.  Go look me up.  I love to attack the radicals in the Republican party.  But to say there are no radical policies being pursued on the Left is just plain ridiculous. >

I would say that Republicans are the ones that have radical positions regarding guns and the environment.  As in they will not support any substantial laws for gun control and are actively trying to harm the environment with their climate change denial >

When framed like that, I agree completely.  However, from their point of view the taking of all weapons or specific weapons (as many Dems propose) from law abiding citizens is radical.  Taking sections of a power grid offline to incorporate green energy (which then did not work) is radical.  Tbh, I'm against that type of absolutism myself - no matter the side of the aisle it comes from. >

But that point of view is in the minority of Democratic legislators.  And probably of Democratic voters.  And the reality is guns aren't going anywhere so it's not even feasible
I can't speak to the section of the power grid you speak of and if it's "radical" or not.  It just seems like you're trying you're best to "both sides" this thing and it doesn't seem to be working out.  But you do you if it makes you happy >

Who the fuck cares what some idiot staffer thinks? Why is this a story? >

The media would win because Trump can't lose, even though he's a loser who lost, but won because he can't lose and his supporters didn't lose because he won but they lost so the media won. Theres one media and theres won trump but both cant win because trump lost. what is happening.