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

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

New: FBI now reports in a bulletin "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January,”

Clearly the proper move here is to surrender to these folks and not hold Trump and his enablers accountable for inciting a murderous riot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive gathering of Trump supporters at the Capitol was "mostly peaceful." The vast majority of them weren't aware of the rioting. It is reported that some who were up close shouted against it.

The narrative is that Trump "incited" the riot. You went further in your interpretation that he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he wanted it--you even connected riotous "sounding" words to him which he had not spoken nor implied (your usual innuendo). Quite the opposite, he spoke of, and expected, a demonstration that would be peaceful and lawful. He was "happy" that so many showed up to give powerful and visible support to his cause.

"Clearly," if the FBI knows about such plans that they report, they should arrest any that are breaking the law, and prepare themselves and the proper agencies to be ready to quell any riots.
Clearly the reason the FBI announced this imminent threat is to alert authorities

It's not necessary for you to insinuate that Trump and his supporters are murderous, riotous thugs. Such language fans any existing embers into actual flames.

I'll do another post that shows the murderous, riotous thugs since you apparently missed that

Maybe, as the adage goes, it takes one to know one. Maybe your the one inciting future riots.
Waiting for the politicians representing the wackos (their constituents) now planning armed protests across the country to get on TV and call for unity

Let’s begin redefining this: If people are armed, it’s not a protest. America doesn’t need or support or condone armed “protests.”

Political commentators are falling into mistake that violent terror threats get less so if some mercy (no impeachment) is shown its leader. There is history of counterterrorism efforts that show otherwise. Only complete isolation, powerlessness, deplatforming, of leader works.
For the next 10 days and beyond, Trump has to be seen as ineffectual, without oxygen, so he can not have second act. No soft exit. It’s horrible to admit, but do not buy into argument that violence is less if we put a brake on gas pedal. They need to be stopped.
But the violence is actually worse if they, and future recruits, view him as strong. They want to back a winner. We prepare for violence but it will be less so in the future with no leadership and if they know their leader can’t help them.
Maybe I’m sounding too harsh, no mercy etc. He may be president of the United States but he is also inciter of domestic terrorism. And his complete isolation and condemnation is the safest path forward. We can’t stop now. Total isolation.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The massive gathering of Trump supporters at the Capitol was "mostly peaceful." The vast majority of them weren't aware of the rioting. It is reported that some who were up close shouted against it.

The narrative is that Trump "incited" the riot. You went further in your interpretation that he knew exactly what was going to happen and that he wanted it--you even connected riotous "sounding" words to him which he had not spoken nor implied (your usual innuendo). Quite the opposite, he spoke of, and expected, a demonstration that would be peaceful and lawful. He was "happy" that so many showed up to give powerful and visible support to his cause.

"Clearly," if the FBI knows about such plans that they report, they should arrest any that are breaking the law, and prepare themselves and the proper agencies to be ready to quell any riots.

It's not necessary for you to insinuate that Trump and his supporters are murderous, riotous thugs. Such language fans any existing embers into actual flames.

Maybe, as the adage goes, it takes one to know one. Maybe your the one inciting future riots.

His “cause” that would be what, overturned what even his own AG and many local state AG’s and 50+ courts said was a safe and legal election? I thought the Twitter and other bans were going to drive him nuts, now the PGA and RNA are pulling all golf tourneys from his golf courses, that’s got to sting.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

His “cause” that would be what, overturned what even his own AG and many local state AG’s and 50+ courts said was a safe and legal election? I thought the Twitter and other bans were going to drive him nuts, now the PGA and RNA are pulling all golf tourneys from his golf courses, that’s got to sting.

senate democrats are calling for the expulsion of Cruz and Hawley. What do you think? is it always a punishable
offense to disagree with democrats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

senate democrats are calling for the expulsion of Cruz and Hawley. What do you think? is it always a punishable
offense to disagree with democrats?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the dems are demanding one of our local reps step down for daring to go to Washington....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

His “cause” that would be what, overturned what even his own AG and many local state AG’s and 50+ courts said was a safe and legal election? I thought the Twitter and other bans were going to drive him nuts, now the PGA and RNA are pulling all golf tourneys from his golf courses, that’s got to sting.

No, the cause was to get the courts, especially SCOTUS, to look at the evidence that was compiled. But that didn't happen. It was not even discussed. It was just shut down, referred to as baseless, false, etc. Or given the slightest nod that there might have been fraud, but not enough to change the election.

In other words, debunked by proclamation.

I heard some of the evidence and would have liked a thorough inquiry into it. Even, now that it is over, I would still like some reliable (if that's possible) inquiry/investigation into what and how much fraud there was. And what the actual potential for fraud is with the wholesale of ballots being mailed to those who didn't ask for them, and how open to fraud the voting machines were. And I would like to hear SCOTUS argue the constitutionality of state governors or secretaries of state overriding state legislatures in allowing procedures that those legislatures didn't allow. And so forth.

I understand how those who wanted Trump defeated would rather that the above did not happen. But it leaves a bad taste, to say the least, in those otherwise inclined. It certainly furthers the corrosion in trust that many of us have in how our governments operate.

But winning helps. It can keep sweeping such concerns under the dirty rug of unbridled democracy.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No, the cause was to get the courts, especially SCOTUS, to look at the evidence that was compiled. But that didn't happen. It was not even discussed. It was just shut down, referred to as baseless, false, etc. Or given the slightest nod that there might have been fraud, but not enough to change the election.

In other words, debunked by proclamation.

I heard some of the evidence and would have liked a thorough inquiry into it. Even, now that it is over, I would still like some reliable (if that's possible) inquiry/investigation into what and how much fraud there was. And what the actual potential for fraud is with the wholesale of ballots being mailed to those who didn't ask for them, and how open to fraud the voting machines were. And I would like to hear SCOTUS argue the constitutionality of state governors or secretaries of state overriding state legislatures in allowing procedures that those legislatures didn't allow. And so forth.

I understand how those who wanted Trump defeated would rather that the above did not happen. But it leaves a bad taste, to say the least, in those otherwise inclined. It certainly furthers the corrosion in trust that many of us have in how our governments operate.

But winning helps. It can keep sweeping such concerns under the dirty rug of unbridled democracy.

Wow surprised you weren’t on a bus to join in the insurrection!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Wow surprised you weren’t on a bus to join in the insurrection!

Thanks for the chuckle. Had to laugh at the notion that there was an "insurrection!" If so, twas a rather weak attempt. Except for the few deaths, one, the first, committed by the government, it sometimes more resembled a Monty Python movie, like the guy planting his butt on Pelosi's office furniture.

OK, OK, I know it was a lot worse than that. Don't mean to minimize it. But a serious "insurrection!"?

If it was an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government, which established government or civil authority was it revolting against. Trump was the established President of that established government. Was Trump revolting against himself?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Wow surprised you weren’t on a bus to join in the insurrection!

do you think their plan was to overturn the election? what was the plan? how were they going to do that?

it was a riot, a garden variety political riot done by a bunch of jerks ( previously, no longer, a tactic of the liberal brat) who can’t take no for an answer. it was never, ever going to overturn an election, here was no plan to do so. it was a modern day temper tantrum. ,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You know, I understand whites are angry but it’s such a shame that when they riot, they just destroy their own neighborhood!

You can try and normalize Trump's behavior all you want, he is headed for the dustbin of history, to be listed as the worst president ever.

Trump organized and incited this riot. His supporters proceeded to kill a Capitol Police Officer. This may not have occurred on 5th Avenue, but Trump is responsible for this homicide. He bragged that he could get away with this exact thing. Will we let him?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Clearly the reason the FBI announced this imminent threat is to alert authorities

Of course. As the FBI has done many other times.
Before Trump.

I'll do another post that shows the murderous, riotous thugs since you apparently missed that

I didn't miss them. How could I? It's all the media shows and talks about. Apparently, you missed the many thousands, the overwhelming majority, of demonstrators who were not riotous thugs. Like the ones who didn't riot and create mayhem in the many demonstrations of the past year in which rioting occurred (and many in which far more destruction occurred than this one). And because most people didn't cause mayhem in those demonstrations, even though a great deal of chaos and damage was done, the media kindly referred to them as "mostly peaceful." So I used the same meme of "mostly peaceful" in regard to this one. But not so with the media. According to them, this (the whole demonstration) was orchestrated to be a violent revolution of some kind. Which is obviously, if you're truthful, not what occurred.

No the media and its anti-Trump persuasion, insisted this was a deliberate insurrection orchestrated by Trump to overthrow the government. That's ridiculous on the face of it. There were not enough actual rioters nor enough weapons to do that. And though some bomb stuff was found, it strangely was planted but not used as would have been in a real insurrection.

I know you consider Trump stupid, but it's way too stupid for anyone who has the ability to move crowds the way he does to plot something as ineffective as the puny thing that happened which could only result in doing more harm to him and his cause than any actual harm to the government.

It seemed to me to be the action of some hotheads and/or possibly some anti-Trump and antigovernment infiltrators specifically to create chaos, distrust, and/or harm to Trump. But it certainly was fuel for those who want to get rid of Trump, even Republicans, to call it a Trump directed insurrection or such. And they jumped on it big time.

"Never let an emergency go to waste."

Let’s begin redefining this: If people are armed, it’s not a protest. America doesn’t need or support or condone armed “protests.”

Yes, "redefining" is a major component of Marxist, leftist, and Progressive modus operandi. Pre-redefinition, being armed was not a crime nor was a peaceful protest meant to be restricted to only those who left their arms at home. Being armed, carrying your weapon in the public space, was not a sign of nor necessarily a predisposition toward violence. It was, in fact, protection from and a suppression of violence.

Your redefinition, of course, fits right in with the Progressive narrative that people don't need guns. And only small capacity single shot per squeeze guns permitted for sport and hunting and possible protection (against multiple attackers as well). If at all. The ultimate goal being the elimination of such nonsense as the Second Amendment.

Political commentators are falling into mistake that violent terror threats get less so if some mercy (no impeachment) is shown its leader. There is history of counterterrorism efforts that show otherwise. Only complete isolation, powerlessness, deplatforming, of leader works.

For the next 10 days and beyond, Trump has to be seen as ineffectual, without oxygen, so he can not have second act. No soft exit. It’s horrible to admit, but do not buy into argument that violence is less if we put a brake on gas pedal. They need to be stopped.
But the violence is actually worse if they, and future recruits, view him as strong. They want to back a winner. We prepare for violence but it will be less so in the future with no leadership and if they know their leader can’t help them.

This is the perfect formula for a Marxist, Communist, Socialist, Progressive power structure to label any opposition (as terrorist for instance), marginalize it, cancel it. And it is the exact formula, as you finally admit, that is taking place. It is not a formula for preserving a free society. Rather it's one for shutting it down.
For instituting an authoritarian regime.

It's what is claimed that "Conservatives" want to do against Muslims or Black people or anyone they supposedly hate. And you do hate Trump. It's kinda strange that our media tech giants want to deplatform Trump and Trumpists, but not the CCP nor other anti-liberty regimes. Well . . . not so strange, they have something fundamentally in common with them.

A liberty minded person should view what you prescribe as frightening, to say the least.

Maybe I’m sounding too harsh, no mercy etc. He may be president of the United States but he is also inciter of domestic terrorism. And his complete isolation and condemnation is the safest path forward. We can’t stop now. Total isolation.

No maybe about it, other than it's not merely that you're sounding too harsh . . . you're sounding like a tyrant . . . which includes the various constant lying and insinuating, and conjecturing, and labeling that has led up to your tyrannical conclusion.

But I do appreciate that you finally admit and define what you're doing. For all those who wondered why you would not respond with logical, rational argument, actual conversation, but would just ignore, and repeat, no matter how your lies were debunked, now you can all see the true, fanatical, authoritarian disposition driving Pete's unreasonable, one-sided, relentless rhetoric.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No maybe about it, other than it's not merely that you're sounding too harsh . . . you're sounding like a tyrant . . . which includes the various constant lying and insinuating, and conjecturing, and labeling that has led up to your tyrannical conclusion.

OK, Mr Alinsky

But I do appreciate that you finally admit and define what you're doing. For all those who wondered why you would not respond with logical, rational argument, actual conversation, but would just ignore, and repeat, no matter how your lies were debunked, now you can all see the true, fanatical, authoritarian disposition driving Pete's unreasonable, one-sided, relentless rhetoric.

You know better that's not my point. But if you view Trump as the leader of a terrorist movement, as we should, then those who followed are not all alike. There are the complicit enablers. The violent criminals. And those who followed a path that they may want to get off.

No actually, the following was written by someone paid by this country to control the growth of violent terrorism and fight extremist groups, who has actually done it.

Political commentators are falling into mistake that violent terror threats get less so if some mercy (no impeachment) is shown its leader. There is history of counterterrorism efforts that show otherwise. Only complete isolation, powerlessness, deplatforming, of leader works.
For the next 10 days and beyond, Trump has to be seen as ineffectual, without oxygen, so he can not have second act. No soft exit. It’s horrible to admit, but do not buy into argument that violence is less if we put a brake on gas pedal. They need to be stopped.
But the violence is actually worse if they, and future recruits, view him as strong. They want to back a winner. We prepare for violence but it will be less so in the future with no leadership and if they know their leader can’t help them.
Maybe I’m sounding too harsh, no mercy etc. He may be president of the United States but he is also inciter of domestic terrorism. And his complete isolation and condemnation is the safest path forward. We can’t stop now. Total isolation.

[Pete F.]

It’s an open and shut case. Trump incited a violent insurrection against another branch of government. He needs to leave office now—either via resignation, the 25th Amendment, or impeachment. His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled.

Article 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States.

Thousands of Yale and Harvard law school alumni and students petition for Cruz and Hawley to be disbarred.

Trump supporters are not victimized by liberal elites. They are victims of their own worthless leaders.

Trump, Hawley, Cruz: They are all unprincipled self-promoters who have been fundraising on the false promise of uncovering nonexistent election fraud.

They know their claims are lies and they keep shouting them out. They have never produced one piece of evidence. If they want to prove their case, let their evidence see the light of day.

It is currently up to 60+ lost cases in court with maybe one win.
They were not cases that represented difficult questions when the court had to draw a hard line.

You want to see unity, then call for the GOP leadership fronted by the VP to hold a National address to denounce the lie that the election was stolen.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s an open and shut case. Trump incited a violent insurrection against another branch of government. He needs to leave office now—either via resignation, the 25th Amendment, or impeachment. His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled.

Trump did not incite an insurrection. He didn't, ask for or order anyone to use violence, destroy anything, harm or kill anyone. He did not ask for Congress to be overthrown.

No mob had the power to do that. It sounds silly to even say that. What is your worst scenario. That all of Congress would be killed? Then what would happen to the relatively few and weakly armed who stormed the building? They would somehow be untouched, victorious, and the rulers of Congress?

That is nonsense. To say anybody orchestrated such an obviously doomed attempt, unless they were total idiots (I know that you think Trump is this mastermind idiot capable of controlling thousands of people to do things he didn't specify but somehow really wanted and able to get 74 million to vote for him). I'm not getting how what you posit is "an open and shut case."

On the contrary, Trump specifically noted that it would be a peaceful law abiding demonstration. Sounds like you're trying to incite what you would call an insurrection against the President.

And "His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled"? Is this some call to insurrection against members of Congress? You really do sound like a Castro type revolutionary. A Bolshevik. Maybe slightly milder.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Trump did not incite an insurrection. He didn't, ask for or order anyone to use violence, destroy anything, harm or kill anyone. He did not ask for Congress to be overthrown.

No mob had the power to do that. It sounds silly to even say that. What is your worst scenario. That all of Congress would be killed? Then what would happen to the relatively few and weakly armed who stormed the building? They would somehow be untouched, victorious, and the rulers of Congress?

That is nonsense. To say anybody orchestrated such an obviously doomed attempt, unless they were total idiots (I know that you think Trump is this mastermind idiot capable of controlling thousands of people to do things he didn't specify but somehow really wanted and able to get 74 million to vote for him). I'm not getting how what you posit is "an open and shut case."

On the contrary, Trump specifically noted that it would be a peaceful law abiding demonstration. Sounds like you're trying to incite what you would call an insurrection against the President.

And "His most egregious enablers—ergo Hawley, Cruz—should be censured or expelled"? Is this some call to insurrection against members of Congress? You really do sound like a Castro type revolutionary. A Bolshevik. Maybe slightly milder.

I thought you were smarter, but what the president says and has been saying since the loss matters, especially in light of his rabid base buying into this stolen election conspiracy theory. Yes I’d agree it’s Trumps lame arse attempt at a coup that was domed from the start, but thinking he, his family, his lawyer and GOP minions didn’t incite an attempted coup to somehow change (regardless of low odds) is denying the obvious.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I thought you were smarter, but what the president says and has been saying since the loss matters, especially in light of his rabid base buying into this stolen election conspiracy theory. Yes I’d agree it’s Trumps lame arse attempt at a coup that was domed from the start, but thinking he, his family, his lawyer and GOP minions didn’t incite an attempted coup to somehow change (regardless of low odds) is denying the obvious.

The "obvious"--actual words, not secret conjectured code--doesn't lead to a conclusion that Trump and his GOP minions incited a coup. Did Pelosi, Schumer, and their Democrat minions incite leftist rioters over the summer and fall and still going on now?

[Sea Dangles]

It was a rally that ended up as something liberals feel they can refer to as a coup. Who would have expected more?

[Got Stripers]

Proud boys stand down and stand by, looks like seven white supremacy groups have been identified as organizing this riot, gee wiz where would they get that idea from. 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.

[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.

[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

[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"

[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...

[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