obama says BLM would have been treated differently if they stormed the capital

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hmm, I suppose Stop the Steal was a Euphemism for peaceable assembly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't think it was intended to be a euphemism, certainly not one for a riot. But you will continue to try persuading with innuendo, insinuation, conjecture, and lies. It's what you do. I believe you really think that is the way, when you have no other, to save what you consider our Democracy.

If a Democracy depends on deceit, its probably more of a rigged authoritarian regime--with the understanding, of course, that it is for the good of the people--like Progressivism.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Proud boys stand down and stand by, looks like seven white supremacy groups have been identified as organizing this riot,

How does organizing a riot equate with standing down or standing back? Trump has been identified as calling for a rally--not a riot. His rallies have not been riots. The vast, vast, majority of those attending the rally did not riot, nor did they support any idea of a riot. Unfortunately, there were some dummies and infiltrators who had a different agenda. Some may have had the idea of discrediting Trump and his supporters.

Some of his early indoor gatherings were infiltrated with a few who tried to create a little ruckus. Other than that, his massive rallies have been non-violent, and patriotic--not seditious--oh, that's right, there were calls to lock her up. But that was not unpatriotic nor calls to overthrow the government.

gee wiz where would they get that idea from.

Can you point out specifically, not conjecturally, not through interpretation, but a specific Trump promotion of a riot?

Hey you are DeBarr and have defended him for four years, it’s predictable and frankly it’s almost comical at this stage of this game show. I don’t know what’s more amusing, your defenses of all he does, or SD actually still believing he is the best president of our lifetime.

Barr severely criticized Trump for this riot--you claimed he was a Trump bootlicker--quite a way to lick Trump's boots. I guess I cannot be called DeBarr anymore. Oh . . . I guess you can call me whatever you want. Whatever gives some flavor, some spice, to your just say stuff.

And your characterizing what I did as defending Trump deflected from my pointing out the lies, regurgitated misrepresentations, general false and malicious BS that you and Pete F spewed. If pointing out the truth is defending Trump, so be it. I never said he was a model person or statesman. And when actual truths were said about him, I didn't deny or even comment on them. I repeated over and over that it was not about Trump for me. But it suited whatever purpose anti-Trumpers had to make it solely about him. He was the shiny object that distracted from the real issues. I tried to defend the truth, not Trump. And I tried to start discussions of the real governmental and constitutional issues that were transforming us into an authoritarian administrative regulatory state instead of a constitutional republic.

Frankly, though I despise the dishonest way, actually the dangerous to our liberties way, of dispatching him, I'm relieved, perhaps prematurely, that it won't be about him anymore, and way more importantly, it can be about how we will be governed.

Pete F has already tried to defend what our high tech information oligarchs, namely Apple, Amazon, and Twitter have so quickly done as soon as it was confirmed that the Dems have total ruling power. The social media giants supported the Dems with huge sums of money and information suppression and as much supportive manipulation of speech as they could before the election. Now that their paid for party has taken control of both branches of Congress and the President, they don't think they have to be shy about their intentions to crush any competition, business or ideological.

Boom, like that, they conspire to shut down Parler, and others, and even the President. This rapid, decisive, and powerful collusion is far more dangerous to the American Experiment in individual freedom than any bogus characterizations of Trump supposedly being a dictator of some sort.

Maybe now, with Trump gone, we can discuss the real transformations occurring in our government and our societal norms.

[Pete F.]

People underestimate the role of social media in radicalization. This is the main way right wing extremists are radicalized. Extremist media exposure is also one of the most robust predictors of political violence.
This means social media policies and censorship have a quarantining effect. By limiting exposure to the largest audiences, fewer people end up being radicalized.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

People underestimate the role of social media in radicalization.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spoken like a true dictator...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Maybe now, with Trump gone, we can discuss the real transformations occurring in our government and our societal norms

ummm...no...they will find a new object for their ire...likely whoever is presumed to be leading the #resistance...because that is wrong

[Pete F.]

The surest sign of Trump’s unfitness for the presidency is that there is a 100.00% chance he is angrier about losing his Twitter account than he is about Capitol Hill being sacked by his supporters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Traitors View Post

Proud boys


how many poor boys are there?....it seems like there might be 9 or so...and how are they a "white supremacist" organization...the dude they arrested who is suppose to be their leader is Cuban American and self-described as very brown .....WAPO "The leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio"