Waygook.org

International => North America => USA => Topic started by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 10:20:31 am

Title: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 10:20:31 am
One of the biggest concerns that some people have about the US election, is that if Trump loses the election, there will
be violence coming from the Trump supporter side. This sounds like an overzealous prediction, but after what Trump said out of his mouth, I have a strong feeling that if Biden wins, these right-wing extremist and white supremacist militia groups, will start a primal power civil war or to a lower scale, perpetrate violence against liberals, people of color, and religious minorities for voting for Biden, if Biden wins.
There is enough voter suppression happening in the USA, and that voter suppression is perpetrated by people who do not want to see blacks, women, Latinos, the working poor, Indigenous people, or Muslims to vote. But I say no matter what their race, color, or religion is, all American citizens have the right to vote for who they want to be their leader. But if Biden is going to win, and these right-wing fanatics cause any violence, it will be Trumps fault because he said it out of his own mouth that the transition will not be peaceful , and he will refuse to concede. If Biden loses the election, I would strongly urge all Biden supporters to please, do NOT bow down to any barbaric violence.
If you ask me, if Trump loses the election and violence from his supporters breaks out, Trump should be arrested and tried in court for crimes against humanity. If not in the US supreme court then in the ICC. Also if violence breaks out, I strongly urge the Mexican government and the Canadian government to send all of their troops to guard the borders with the USA.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 02, 2020, 10:23:18 am
If Trump loses they're going to march around a bit but overall won't do shit. Trump's most zealous support base is much louder than it is large.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on November 02, 2020, 10:24:06 am
Antifa, BLM, and other extreme Marxist groups will try to riot and be violent after Trump wins again.  But, the national guard is ready.  This time, unlike 2016, they will be prepared and it will be put down fast.  But, could be a rough couple of days from the far left crazies.  We shall see. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 10:29:40 am
Antifa, BLM, and other extreme Marxist groups will try to riot and be violent after Trump wins again.  But, the national guard is ready.  This time, unlike 2016, they will be prepared and it will be put down fast.  But, could be a rough couple of days from the far left crazies.  We shall see. 
That's why I said for all Biden supporters not to resort to violence if Biden loses, nor should they yield to the intimidations from Trump who is perpetrating violence through his rhetorical incitement.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Liechtenstein on November 02, 2020, 10:29:49 am
Mexican and Canadian troops guard the borders. With what? The Canadians could all hold up signs that say:

"I'm Sorry"

The Mexicans....don't know...."Dos cervezas por favor."?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 11:18:39 am
Mexican and Canadian troops guard the borders. With what? The Canadians could all hold up signs that say:

"I'm Sorry"

The Mexicans....don't know...."Dos cervezas por favor."?

How typical of you Americans with your stereotypes. Just proves that you know less about other countries outside of the USA thanks
to the poor education system mixed in with the propaganda machine.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 02, 2020, 11:49:46 am
If Trump loses they're going to march around a bit but overall won't do shit. Trump's most zealous support base is much louder than it is large.
This.

You might get a couple isolated incidents of Proud Boys brawling Antifa. Maybe a deranged Trumper or two shooting up someplace. And the rest of them bitching about it on Limbaugh and Hannity and going on with their lives.

Same with a good 99% of Biden supporters. Maybe some marches and drum circles turned refuse pelting of Trump supporters or something.

The biggest problem is the black bloc-antifa types. They aren't Biden supporters, just anarchists in general. They'll use it as an excuse to trash a Starbucks and then wear their week in county jail as a badge of honor and go home.

If people were really concerned about Trump supporters and violence, they'd be boarding up Grayling, MI or Comstock, EBF, not New York, NY
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 02, 2020, 11:59:54 am

 But I say no matter what their race, color, or religion is, all American citizens have the right to vote for who they want to be their leader.


That's pretty radical.  Do you think America is ready for such a revolutionary system like you've proposed? Do you really think they're ready to give the right to vote to all citizens regardless of race, colour or religion?  Dream big, I guess.  It's a noble cause.  Hopefully we'll see that happen in our lifetime.

On a sidebar here, if the right wing extremists get violent towards Democrats if Biden were to win, why exactly would Canada send its troops to the border?  Would we be trying to prevent any people fleeing the violence from reaching safety? 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 02, 2020, 12:13:39 pm
This.

Maybe a deranged Trumper or two shooting up someplace.

This.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 02, 2020, 01:01:00 pm
If Trump loses, his supporters will abandon him overnight because they don't want to be associated with a loser. And they'll start lying and saying they never really liked him and didn't think he was a true conservative, or that they only liked him because he was "funny" and wanted him to "trigger the libs."

Problem is that Trump and the GOP have muddied the water so much that a Trump loss might be unclear.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 02:28:55 pm
That's pretty radical.  Do you think America is ready for such a revolutionary system like you've proposed? Do you really think they're ready to give the right to vote to all citizens regardless of race, colour or religion?  Dream big, I guess.  It's a noble cause.  Hopefully we'll see that happen in our lifetime.

On a sidebar here, if the right wing extremists get violent towards Democrats if Biden were to win, why exactly would Canada send its troops to the border?  Would we be trying to prevent any people fleeing the violence from reaching safety? 


I do welcome refugees into Canada, but I would strongly support a heavy medical vetting on American refugees because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 02, 2020, 02:29:41 pm
If Trump loses, his supporters will abandon him overnight because they don't want to be associated with a loser. And they'll start lying and saying they never really liked him and didn't think he was a true conservative, or that they only liked him because he was "funny" and wanted him to "trigger the libs."

Problem is that Trump and the GOP have muddied the water so much that a Trump loss might be unclear.

Good point!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 02, 2020, 04:55:31 pm
The Trump Train is already ramped up for intimidation and threats against democracy by threatening a Biden bus and blocking traffic in multiple states.

Let's see if the right-wing militias get aggressive.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 02, 2020, 05:58:17 pm
The Trump Train is already ramped up for intimidation and threats against democracy by threatening a Biden bus and blocking traffic in multiple states.

Let's see if the right-wing militias get aggressive.
LOL. You're comparing that to months of riots that have left dozens dead and smashed hundreds of businesses?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 02, 2020, 06:55:48 pm
LOL. You're comparing that to months of riots that have left dozens dead and smashed hundreds of businesses?

Months of riots? You mean the BLM protests for the killing of George Floyd?

Dozens dead? News reports put the deaths at 19. That's a dozen + seven if you can't do the math.

Smashed businesses? Some of that was deliberately started by right-wing provocateurs.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 02, 2020, 07:45:58 pm
Months of riots? You mean the BLM protests for the killing of George Floyd?

Dozens dead? News reports put the deaths at 19. That's a dozen + seven if you can't do the math.

Smashed businesses? Some of that was deliberately started by right-wing provocateurs.
Last number I saw was 36. I saw another than had it at 25.

Anyways, that's the reason the National Guard has been called out- "peaceful" protests.

Yeah, it's all right-wingers smashing and looting a CVS and toppling Abe Lincoln statues.  :rolleyes: Thanks Alex Jones.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: JNM on November 02, 2020, 07:59:49 pm
Last number I saw was 36. I saw another than had it at 25.

Anyways, that's the reason the National Guard has been called out- "peaceful" protests.

Yeah, it's all right-wingers smashing and looting a CVS and toppling Abe Lincoln statues.  :rolleyes: Thanks Alex Jones.

A show of force shouldn’t wait for actual violence. The threat was there.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 02, 2020, 08:55:45 pm
If Trump loses they're going to march around a bit but overall won't do shit. Trump's most zealous support base is much louder than it is large.
Sure. That's why they armed themselves, piled into their trucks and then ambushed a Biden campaign bus. All after a tweet from don jr.

One truck deliberately collided with an accompanying vehicle. Then trump called them patriots.



Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 02, 2020, 08:59:47 pm
This.

You might get a couple isolated incidents of Proud Boys brawling Antifa. Maybe a deranged Trumper or two shooting up someplace. And the rest of them bitching about it on Limbaugh and Hannity and going on with their lives.

Same with a good 99% of Biden supporters. Maybe some marches and drum circles turned refuse pelting of Trump supporters or something.

The biggest problem is the black bloc-antifa types. They aren't Biden supporters, just anarchists in general. They'll use it as an excuse to trash a Starbucks and then wear their week in county jail as a badge of honor and go home.

If people were really concerned about Trump supporters and violence, they'd be boarding up Grayling, MI or Comstock, EBF, not New York, NY
How do you know they're not?

BS on the biggest problem being antifa types. The militias that want to start their own all-white country within the US are a far, far bigger problem, as the FBI, even while being muted by trump, continues to report.

trump has praised the use of violence. It's the right that stands poised to use it, as shown by the incident in Texas and others.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 03, 2020, 01:34:26 am
Hasn't it been far right terrorists that have been charged in a significant proportion of cases of violence and arson at these protests...includin g the murders of at least 2 police officers in separate incidents?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 03, 2020, 07:29:51 am

trump has praised the use of violence.

(https://i.redd.it/8r03qmz3ppw51.png)

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 03, 2020, 07:33:24 am
Hasn't it been far right terrorists that have been charged in a significant proportion of cases of violence and arson at these protests...includin g the murders of at least 2 police officers in separate incidents?

No.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on November 03, 2020, 07:49:19 am
(https://i.redd.it/8r03qmz3ppw51.png)


Conflate protest and violence much?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 03, 2020, 07:55:33 am
Conflate protest and violence much?

First two are fine (in terms of encouraging protest not violence), the third one in particular is pushing it a bit imho.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on November 03, 2020, 08:24:35 am
By the way, if you see this book for sale anywhere, feel free to walk out of the shop with it, without paying.  :smiley:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 03, 2020, 08:27:29 am
[img]

What’s going on politically in Ireland these days, just for comparison’s sake.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 03, 2020, 09:11:16 am
No.

At around 9:44 pm on May 29, 2020, an initially unknown assailant (later identified as Carrillo) fired a rifle out of the sliding door of a white van, striking security personnel stationed outside the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building in Oakland, California.[8][9][10][11] Two Triple Canopy security officers contracted with the Federal Protective Service were shot, resulting in the death of David Patrick Underwood and the serious injury to the other.

On June 6, 2020, Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Department deputies arrived at Carrillo's residence in Ben Lomond, California. In response, Carrillo allegedly fired at the deputies with an AR-15 style rifle, seriously injuring one deputy and killing Sheriff Sergeant Damon Gutzwiller.[14][17] Two nearby California Highway Patrol officers responded to the scene, and were met with gunfire, wounding one officer. Deputies and officers were also attacked with improvised explosive devices.

...

Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli described the Oakland shooting as an "act of domestic terrorism".[26] The FBI announced on June 16 that Steven Carrillo was associated with the boogaloo movement and that he and Justus had deliberately chosen the night of protests in Oakland for cover for the May 29 attack. The FBI agent-in-charge of the investigation stated, "There is no evidence that these men had any intention to join the demonstration in Oakland. They came to Oakland to kill cops."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings#Santa_Cruz_County,_California_attack

A sworn affidavit by the FBI underlying the complaint reveals new details about a far-right anti-government group’s coordinated role in the violence that roiled through civil unrest over Floyd’s death while in police custody.

Ivan Harrison Hunter, a 26-year-old from Boerne, Texas, is charged with one count of interstate travel to incite a riot for his alleged role in ramping up violence during the protests in Minneapolis on May 27 and 28. According to charges, Hunter, wearing a skull mask and tactical gear, shot 13 rounds at the south Minneapolis police headquarters while people were inside. He also looted and helped set the building ablaze, according to the complaint, which was filed Monday under seal.


https://www.startribune.com/charges-boogaloo-bois-fired-on-mpls-precinct-shouted-justice-for-floyd/572843802/

Three former US servicemen and self-proclaimed members of the far-right "boogaloo" movement were arrested on domestic terrorism charges and accused of carrying unregistered firearms and trying to spark violence during protests against police brutality.


https://www.businessinsider.com/3-boogaloo-men-terror-charges-george-floyd-protest-riot-conspiracy-2020-6

Thirteen men, seven of them associated with an anti-government militia group called the Wolverine Watchmen, associated with the so-called "boogaloo" movement, have been arrested on charges of conspiring to kidnap the Michigan governor, attack the state legislature and threaten law enforcement, prosecutors said on Thursday.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/boogaloo-movement-linked-to-group-accused-of-trying-to-kidnap-michigan-governor-1.9226511

Yep...totally no far right people associated with terrorism, murder, arson etc during these protests  :wink:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 01:55:06 pm
You know the kidnap plotters were of mixed ideology, right?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/09/alleged-kidnapper-posted-anti-trump-video/5940296002/

Anyways, are you seriously trying to suggest the mass riots and unrest were all due to right-wingers? How nuts do you have to be to believe that? That's InfoWars territory.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 03, 2020, 01:58:18 pm
Anyways, are you seriously trying to suggest the mass riots and unrest were all due to right-wingers? How nuts do you have to be to believe that? That's InfoWars territory.

I believe that he was asserting that Right-wingers were responsible for "a significant proportion of cases of violence and arson at these protests."

I suppose that could be accurate, depending on how one defines a "significant proportion".  :undecided:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 03, 2020, 02:10:38 pm
I believe that he was asserting that Right-wingers were responsible for "a significant proportion of cases of violence and arson at these protests."

I suppose that could be accurate, depending on how one defines a "significant proportion".  :undecided:

Don’t present Marty with the opportunity to shift the goalposts again and make his own made-up definition of what “significant” means.

Right-wing militia groups present a much greater threat than antifa which isn’t even an organized group.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 03, 2020, 02:14:55 pm
But that's exactly my strategy. I figure that if I can tire 'em out by having them run back and forth with goal posts, they'll be too exhausted to score any points of their own!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 03, 2020, 02:24:24 pm
But that's exactly my strategy. I figure that if I can tire 'em out by having them run back and forth with goal posts, they'll be too exhausted to score any points of their own!

That’s a new deescalation strategy being implemented by newly defunded and cash-strapped police departments   :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 02:33:51 pm
Don’t present Marty with the opportunity to shift the goalposts again and make his own made-up definition of what “significant” means.

Right-wing militia groups present a much greater threat than antifa which isn’t even an organized group.
Are you seriously suggesting right-wing militias are responsible for months of sustained riots?

You think those businesses in DC and NYC, hotbeds of Trump support, are boarding up because of militias?

Dude, I can admit that there are some  Trump yahoos out there who might try and shoot up a place. I specifically cited that. But you are so far gone that you cannot even admit that those stores are being boarded up in deep blue cities because they fear leftists will flip out when Trump wins.

Savant, you don't lose the entire argument just because you acknowledge some things on your side aren't good. This seems to be a common phenomenon- Some poster will make a general argument against say, Trump or Korea, and then posters like you or MayorHaggar will come along and make a completely ridiculous one, usually it seems, without you guys thinking it through. Then, instead of acknowledging it, you knuckle down and get stuck in untenable positions when you could just take an easy out.

That's why I say right upfront, "Yes, Trump is a liar and a conman."  It's not just because it's true, it's also because I'm not going to get stuck in an argument where I am forced to claim that Trump is some paragon of virtue.

In other words, it's okay to admit that a bunch of left-leaning dipshit college-aged kids are causing some violence and destruction, and yeah, they lean left. What that has to do with the average Biden voter in suburbia or at the retirement home is beyond me, but apparently you seem to be falling in the right-wing trap and seeing them as all linked. I don't associate some deranged militia man with millions of Trump voters and I don't associate some dipshit college kid with some suburban mom who votes Biden.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 02:37:42 pm
Conflate protest and violence much?
Counterpoint: If Trump said those things (or Trump HAS said similar things), people would call it a call for violence. Like seriously, if Trump said those things to his supporters, it would be all over the news as Trump calling for violence and intimidation by his thuggish supporters. Dems say it? The media is like "No, they're just encouraging you to speak truth to power." or "It's protest, not violence."

Look, you can't have it both ways. Either it's okay for Trump AND Dem leaders to talk like that or neither should, but you have to apply the same standard across the board.

I say, as long as it isn't an explicit call for violence, we have to let it slide, under our current standards of speech.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 03, 2020, 02:45:22 pm
You know the kidnap plotters were of mixed ideology, right?
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/10/09/alleged-kidnapper-posted-anti-trump-video/5940296002/

Anyways, are you seriously trying to suggest the mass riots and unrest were all due to right-wingers? How nuts do you have to be to believe that? That's InfoWars territory.

It's almost like you can't comprehend the fact that just like there are left wingers that detest Biden...there are also right wingers that detest Trump.

This doesn't make them any less right wing...and so far it's ORGANISED RIGHT WING GROUPS that have been found to be instigating a significant proportion of violence at these Protests...in addition to:

*police tactics
*some bone head leftists (seemingly a much smaller proportion than the right wing groups that have been outed so far).

Do you understand how easy it is to rule up a crowd and instigate a riot? Probably not.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 02:57:28 pm
This doesn't make them any less right wing...and so far it's ORGANISED RIGHT WING GROUPS that have been found to be instigating a significant proportion of violence at these Protests...in addition to:

From the article-
Quote
"Especially with groups like the boogaloo boys, which are primarily anti-government, you can get both white supremacists and left-leaning anarchists in the same group,"

He was left-wing. Again, why is it so hard to admit that?

Quote
that have been found to be instigating a significant proportion of violence at these Protests
If by significant you mean a small fraction of the number of incidents.

Quote
Do you understand how easy it is to rule up a crowd and instigate a riot? Probably not.
Do you apply the same logic to right-wing violence? How do you know that they wren't riled up by LEFTISTS who were instigating? By YOUR own logic, that is certainly a possibility.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 03:00:15 pm
If you're so confident that it's not leftwingers causing violence, why don't you put on a MAGA hat and walk through a college campus or Portland.

Now do the same with a Biden hat through some random small town in America or at a factory. Completely different reaction.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 03, 2020, 03:05:13 pm
I swear we've had this exact conversation before in another thread
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 03, 2020, 03:15:34 pm
I swear we've had this exact conversation before in another thread

Probably even about 8 years ago on Dave’s.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 03, 2020, 03:18:13 pm
If you're so confident that it's not leftwingers causing violence, why don't you put on a MAGA hat and walk through a college campus or Portland.

Now do the same with a Biden hat through some random small town in America or at a factory. Completely different reaction.



Conjecture is not the argument you seek.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 03, 2020, 03:38:26 pm
If you're so confident that it's not leftwingers causing violence, why don't you put on a MAGA hat and walk through a college campus or Portland.

Now do the same with a Biden hat through some random small town in America or at a factory. Completely different reaction.



100% agreement on that one. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 03, 2020, 03:57:03 pm
As usual DM, the picture you're trying to paint doesn't match up with the reality of things

The boogaloo meme itself emerged concurrently in antigovernment and white power online spaces in the early 2010s. In both of these communities, “boogaloo” was frequently associated with racist violence and, in many cases, was an explicit call for race war.

Today the term is regularly deployed by white nationalists and neo-Nazis who want to see society descend into chaos so that they can come to power and build a new fascist state.

...

In other words, the boogaloo remains a right-wing fantasy.


https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2020/06/05/boogaloo-started-racist-meme
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 04:28:15 pm
In other words, the boogaloo remains a right-wing fantasy.[/i]
Yeah, one thing idiots in vans with guns are known for, it's their rigid adherence to dogma, not a general desire to be violent.  :rolleyes:

What is so hard about admitting one of the kidnappers was a leftist? Why do you feel that admitting to that damages your argument in any way?

Yeah, there's violent people on both sides out there. You might get a Trumper shooting up a place and you might get leftists going beserk and smashing and torching a few city blocks.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 03, 2020, 04:30:04 pm
Conjecture is not the argument you seek.
Put your money where your mouth is. Put on the MAGA hat.

You know it's true. Deep down you know you aren't safe to wear a MAGA hat. Some random person would come up behind you and brick you in the head because there are too many people out there with Trump Derangement Syndrome who cannot control their emotions.

Also, we all remember the riots and lootings that broke out after Romney lost and when Michael Flynn was convicted. Oh wait....
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 03, 2020, 09:02:38 pm
Yeah, one thing idiots in vans with guns are known for, it's their rigid adherence to dogma, not a general desire to be violent.  :rolleyes:

What is so hard about admitting one of the kidnappers was a leftist? Why do you feel that admitting to that damages your argument in any way?

Yeah, there's violent people on both sides out there. You might get a Trumper shooting up a place and you might get leftists going beserk and smashing and torching a few city blocks.

Except he wasn't a leftist. Trashing Trump doesn't make him a leftist. That's like saying me trashing Biden (which I do often) makes me a right winger.

From the same article - a meme Caserta shared shows a man with his face obscured holding a rifle, with the caption "when you've smoked 3 commies before you can legally smoke cigarettes."


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 04, 2020, 06:20:21 am
If you're so confident that it's not leftwingers causing violence, why don't you put on a MAGA hat and walk through a college campus or Portland.

Now do the same with a Biden hat through some random small town in America or at a factory. Completely different reaction.

Not to take your comment too seriously, but that’s a false equivalence on a couple fronts. Though it sounds strange to say it as they are both presidential candidates for major political parties, Trump and Biden are not on equal ground here. Trump is a purveyor of hate running a campaign of division. “Sleepy joe wants to raise your taxes” doesn’t exactly incite the same emotions. Also the red MAGA hat has become a potent symbol of Trumpism. Could you take anyone who’s wearing a “Ridin’ With Biden!” cap seriously?

Also college campuses are going to be far more densely populated than any small town, with a higher proportion of younger people who are more prone to violence, yada yada yada. Let’s run the same thought experiment through a campus conservatives/democrats group meeting; Does anybody fare better.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 04, 2020, 07:17:08 am
Trump is a purveyor of hate running a campaign of division


You ain't black.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on November 04, 2020, 07:29:09 am
You ain't black.

?????
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 04, 2020, 07:47:21 am
You ain't black.

I’m also not from Derry.

What Tyler said.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on November 04, 2020, 07:50:43 am
I assume he meant Biden encouraging people to vote based on their skin colour was a little bit divisive in terms of race relations.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 04, 2020, 07:52:01 am
Not to take your comment too seriously, but that’s a false equivalence on a couple fronts. Though it sounds strange to say it as they are both presidential candidates for major political parties, Trump and Biden are not on equal ground here. Trump is a purveyor of hate running a campaign of division. “Sleepy joe wants to raise your taxes” doesn’t exactly incite the same emotions. Also the red MAGA hat has become a potent symbol of Trumpism. Could you take anyone who’s wearing a “Ridin’ With Biden!” cap seriously?

Also college campuses are going to be far more densely populated than any small town, with a higher proportion of younger people who are more prone to violence, yada yada yada. Let’s run the same thought experiment through a campus conservatives/democrats group meeting; Does anybody fare better.

Come on.  Forget college campuses. Wear a MAGA hat into a Starbucks in an urban setting.  You know people feel justified in disrespecting the person wearing the hat.  How about the incidents of people not wanting to sit next to a MAGA hat wearing passenger on a plane?  That's why it's hard to not root for Trump.  The anger and hate coupled with self-righteousness on the left is disgusting. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 04, 2020, 07:52:46 am
If Trump wins I hope the first thing he does is pardon Rittenhouse. Let's turn this into a real shitshow
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 04, 2020, 07:56:12 am
I’m also not from Derry.


Don, I noticed you have referenced Shaneberry's Irish background twice, and you asked me as a Canadian why I would vote for Trump.  But, I never noticed you calling out that rabid anti-Trumper from the U.K., Ronnie Omelettes, on the fact he was from the U.K.  Seems a person's nationality only comes into play if they are pro Trump.  Anti-Trumpers from around the globe are welcome to chime in, though.  Some could call that a double standard. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 04, 2020, 07:59:11 am
Come on.  Forget college campuses. Wear a MAGA hat into a Starbucks in an urban setting.  You know people feel justified in disrespecting the person wearing the hat.

Yes, the Starbucks patrons will silently (but somehow more rudely?) judge the MAGA man unfavorably, just as the patrons at Ray’s Family Restaurant in rural Arkansas will silently (but in a more polite, folksy way?) judge the Biden rider. Neither will become violent.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 04, 2020, 08:00:36 am
Don, I noticed you have referenced Shaneberry's Irish background twice, and you asked me as a Canadian why I would vote for Trump.  But, I never noticed you calling out that rabid anti-Trumper from the U.K., Ronnie Omelettes, on the fact he was from the U.K.  Seems a person's nationality only comes into play if they are pro Trump.  Anti-Trumpers from around the globe are welcome to chime in, though.  Some could call that a double standard.

Easy. I believe you when you say you are Canadian. And I believed you would have a unique perspective when I asked you about your views. I was right. I was happy to hear what you had to say.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 04, 2020, 09:28:55 am
Yes, the Starbucks patrons will silently (but somehow more rudely?) judge the MAGA man unfavorably, just as the patrons at Ray’s Family Restaurant in rural Arkansas will silently (but in a more polite, folksy way?) judge the Biden rider. Neither will become violent.

Silently?  plug "starbucks maga hat anger" and check it out. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 04, 2020, 09:45:45 am
As opposed to armed MAGA heads trying to run a politician's bus off the road.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 04, 2020, 09:54:19 am
As opposed to armed MAGA heads trying to run a politician's bus off the road.

You ain't black.

Also:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-train-incident-with-biden-bus-police-say-biden-harris-vehicle-likely-at-fault

Oops!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 04, 2020, 10:18:08 am
Daily Wire? Really?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 04, 2020, 10:52:42 am
Daily Wire? Really?

You know what you ain’t (even if you is)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 04, 2020, 11:34:02 am
Daily Wire? Really?

You only have the intellectual capacity for an ad hominem? Can't engage with a Daily Wire article on any deeper level?

Sad!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 04, 2020, 11:38:53 am
Why can't you find me a reputable source to engage with?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 04, 2020, 02:05:17 pm
As opposed to armed MAGA heads trying to run a politician's bus off the road.
Police Dept. found that the Biden staffer vehicle was at fault.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 04, 2020, 02:07:37 pm
Daily Wire? Really?
Read the article. They're simply linking to a local news station which covered the story.

https://www.wfla.com/news/fbi-investigating-incident-where-trump-train-surrounded-biden-bus/

People, don't dismiss stories out of hand simply because of the source. This works both ways. Read the story and research it. Yes, sometimes the right/left-wing media is right and the other side is omitting things or barely reporting on them.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 04, 2020, 02:41:52 pm
Police Dept. found that the Biden staffer vehicle was at fault.

"The police department also said it has researched the crash and watched online video. It said the “at-fault vehicle” may be the Biden-Harris staffer’s car, while the “victim” appears to be one of the Trump vehicles."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: VanIslander on November 04, 2020, 04:17:57 pm
Be careful!

Democrats are likely to throw their lattes!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 04, 2020, 07:30:16 pm
At fault in what context? Victim in what context?

Sounds like someone is trying to use out of context road/insurance rules to paint a pretty little picture.

Funny how the same people who defended the kenosha shooter becauae "self defense" are now touting "at fault" and "victim".

Goalposts 101.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on November 04, 2020, 07:33:20 pm
Trump declared himself the winner and without evidence claimed fraud (as he had done before without evidence). Might lead to violence if enough people believe it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: shanebarry1986 on November 05, 2020, 07:15:18 am
At fault in what context? Victim in what context?

Sounds like someone is trying to use out of context road/insurance rules to paint a pretty little picture.

Funny how the same people who defended the kenosha shooter becauae "self defense" are now touting "at fault" and "victim".

Goalposts 101.

You might be right, but you ain't black.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on November 05, 2020, 07:41:25 am
You might be right, but you ain't black.

??????
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 05, 2020, 07:49:04 am
You heard him Tyler. Hand over your melanin
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on November 05, 2020, 07:55:50 am
bbbbut i have so little to give
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 05, 2020, 10:18:26 am
Joe Biden is just one state (6 electoral college votes) away from being the president. And already Trump is asking for a recount in Michigan and Wisconsin? That just proves Trump is a crybaby man child brat. He even admitted that losing is difficult. Well, if that's the case, if he loses then I still say watch out because he did say that the transition will not be peaceful. If it means not being peaceful to a point that his hothead supporters cause violence, then Trump will have to look forward towards being charged as a war criminal. On the other hand, if not having a peaceful transition means acting out in his tantrums, everybody will just look down on him as just another sore loser coward, and move on, that's all. In that case it just proves that nobody will yield to his uncultured rhetoric because American voters have chosen not to let Trump's threatening words turn them around.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 05, 2020, 11:32:43 am
Joe Biden is just one state (6 electoral college votes) away from being the president. And already Trump is asking for a recount in Michigan and Wisconsin? That just proves Trump is a crybaby man child brat. He even admitted that losing is difficult. Well, if that's the case, if he loses then I still say watch out because he did say that the transition will not be peaceful. If it means not being peaceful to a point that his hothead supporters cause violence, then Trump will have to look forward towards being charged as a war criminal. On the other hand, if not having a peaceful transition means acting out in his tantrums, everybody will just look down on him as just another sore loser coward, and move on, that's all. In that case it just proves that nobody will yield to his uncultured rhetoric because American voters have chosen not to let Trump's threatening words turn them around.
Biden is potentially one state away (PA), but that 6 EV figure is based on Biden having AZ which FOXNews and AP called for him but NYT and others have not and Nate Silver is saying is premature.

MI and WI should at least be audited. Target Smart  had MI and WI early votes at pretty close distribution for Rs and Ds and the WI turnout looks way higher than every other state.

Will it change anything or is there any fraud? Cant make that call, but those things would at least warrant some kind of basic check for anomalies.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 05, 2020, 11:38:38 am
Gonna fact check myself on the last post. I'm hearing WI calculates voter turnout than everyone else and reports it based off registered voters, not voting aged population.

Come on WI, thats some New Hampshire type shit to pull and make yourself look special.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on November 05, 2020, 12:24:06 pm
Biden is potentially one state away (PA), but that 6 EV figure is based on Biden having AZ which FOXNews and AP called for him but NYT and others have not and Nate Silver is saying is premature.

Or Nevada, right?  It is 6 EV ...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 05, 2020, 01:03:01 pm
Or Nevada, right?  It is 6 EV ...
Nevada is 6, but Biden should be 253, not 264. It's 253 without Arizona.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: KimDuHan on November 05, 2020, 01:18:58 pm
It's not over yet, if Trump pulls Arizona and Nevada a riot might break out.

Trump votes are pending in Nevada and Arizona.

I believe Trump will take one of these states if not both.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 05, 2020, 01:47:35 pm
It's not over yet, if Trump pulls Arizona and Nevada a riot might break out.

Trump votes are pending in Nevada and Arizona.

I believe Trump will take one of these states if not both.

Fixed
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 05, 2020, 05:57:56 pm
It's not over yet, if Trump pulls Arizona and Nevada a riot might break out.

Trump votes are pending in Nevada and Arizona.

I believe Trump will take one of these states if not both.
That leaves him 5 short of 270, assuming he holds GA and NC.  Taking both without WI or PA or anything else is pointless. That being said, it would be important because if he can somehow get a bunch of votes tossed in WI, that puts him over the hump.

270towin.com people for all of your fantasy scenaaaaios.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on November 06, 2020, 08:32:38 am
Biden is calling for calm. He has no doubt that he will win, but unlike Trump, he cannot make any false claims for victory.
So far, the worst violence I have seen were altercations in Manhattan.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on November 06, 2020, 10:36:09 am
Joe Biden is just one state (6 electoral college votes) away from being the president. And already Trump is asking for a recount in Michigan and Wisconsin? That just proves Trump is a crybaby man child brat. He even admitted that losing is difficult. Well, if that's the case, if he loses then I still say watch out because he did say that the transition will not be peaceful. If it means not being peaceful to a point that his hothead supporters cause violence, then Trump will have to look forward towards being charged as a war criminal. On the other hand, if not having a peaceful transition means acting out in his tantrums, everybody will just look down on him as just another sore loser coward, and move on, that's all. In that case it just proves that nobody will yield to his uncultured rhetoric because American voters have chosen not to let Trump's threatening words turn them around.

A war criminal?  How do you figure that? 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on November 06, 2020, 10:41:42 am
for all the things you could possible criticize trump for... war criminal? compared to the average CEO? sure. compared to the average US president? nahhhhhhh
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 06, 2020, 12:16:22 pm
I am going to update my claim on violence: I now give a VERY high chance of a sustained period of right-wing violence. My prediction was based on Biden winning with a count that looked finished on election night. Yeah maybe a state that that the GOP would grouse about but it being a pretty healthy margin even if the electoral count was close and that city counts would dump pretty early.

Thats changed. The vote, at least in PA, looks legitimate and thats the ballgame. But the perception of how the vote is coming in is going to play to the worst fears of Trump's base. I expected the usual plaintive cries of "RIGGED!!!" but this is a disaster.

I wish Biden had won by a big margin in the Rust Belt on Election Night. That would be better than this- A legitimate Biden victory that even to casuals looks like a clusterf.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 06, 2020, 12:24:50 pm
BTW of any pro-Trump people want to argue about PA being legitimate, bring it on. I was tracking PA mail-in data right up to ED. It is going exactly as was projected and in line with turnout.

I do think there should be an audit of WI and MI because the mail in count and targetsmart data seems to be really off. But that being said, WI and MI are very hard to model so I wouldnt scream "Fraud!!!!" there either.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: lifeisgood6447 on November 06, 2020, 12:44:55 pm
Get with it DM, you know they had this conversation:

" We have the power to rig it, do you want to rig it?"
"Let's do it"
"just by one or two electoral votes"
"do you want to get the Senate too?
"nah"

 :undecided: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: D.L.Orean on November 06, 2020, 02:44:03 pm
"Good plan. Should we steal Florida and Texas?"

"Hmmmm.... Seems smarter to focus our villainy on Atlanta and Philadelphia, where Biden is already a shoe-in."

"Makes sense."

Hiding in plain sight. Genius!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on November 06, 2020, 03:12:57 pm
"Good plan. Should we steal Florida and Texas?"

"Hmmmm.... Seems smarter to focus our villainy on Atlanta and Philadelphia, where Biden is already a shoe-in."

"Makes sense."

Okay but let's be realistic, if the Democrats did try to rig an election this is around the amount of ineptitude I'd expect from them
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on November 09, 2020, 11:46:28 am
No violence from the Trump supporters.  Though when the recounts and court challenges shift things, watch the left come out and be violent again.  Though the cold and the national guard will shut that down fast.  I doubt Trump will put up with their crap anymore in a second term. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on November 09, 2020, 01:12:44 pm
No violence from the Trump supporters.  Though when the recounts and court challenges shift things, watch the left come out and be violent again.  Though the cold and the national guard will shut that down fast.  I doubt Trump will put up with their crap anymore in a second term. 

Choo-choo on the MAGA Express.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 10, 2020, 08:11:21 am
No violence from the Trump supporters.  Though when the recounts and court challenges shift things, watch the left come out and be violent again.  Though the cold and the national guard will shut that down fast.  I doubt Trump will put up with their crap anymore in a second term. 

Maybe because they got arrested before starting their violence

2 men arrested near Philadelphia vote center had QAnon paraphernalia, AR-15 in car

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/2-men-detained-after-police-learn-possible-threat-philadelphia-vote-n1246774

Or maybe they're busy getting fired for using government office to call for the execution of political opponents.

An Alabama police captain’s election-related “bullet in their skull” Facebook comments are under investigation, authorities said Thursday.

Captain Scott Walden has been placed on administrative leave and “the internal investigation could and may be pending termination,” Flomaton Police Chief Charles Thompson said.


https://www.wfla.com/news/national/put-a-bullet-in-their-skull-alabama-police-captain-on-leave-over-facebook-election-comments/

Or maybe they're busy calling for the beheading of scientists.

Steve Bannon Suggests Beheading Fauci

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/11/06/twitter-bans-steve-bannon-account-after-talk-of-a-beheaded-anthony-fauci-wray/?sh=4d1d27eb4ac8
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 10, 2020, 10:37:00 pm
No.
LIAR.

"From 2009 through 2018, the far right has been responsible for 73% of domestic extremist-related fatalities, according to a 2019 study by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). And the toll is growing. More people–49–were murdered by far-right extremists in the U.S. last year than in any other year since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress in July that a majority of the bureau’s domestic-terrorism investigations since October were linked to white supremacy."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 11, 2020, 11:18:57 am
Is this legit White Supremacist violence or does this include members of the Aryan Brotherhood killing a member of the Latin Kings in a meth dispute?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 11, 2020, 12:05:37 pm
Is this legit White Supremacist violence or does this include members of the Aryan Brotherhood killing a member of the Latin Kings in a meth dispute?

That's actually a pretty relevant question.
Just for reference, gogators was quoting a TIME article (https://time.com/5647304/white-nationalist-terrorism-united-states/) which in turn was quoting an article published in 2019 by theAnti-Defamation League (ADL).
I couldn't find a direct link to the article itself, but I believe that this article is a synopsis of it:
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-right-wing-extremists-killed-38-people-in-2019-far-surpassing-all
It discussed who the victims were, and links them all to racism-based motives in one way or another.

So I guess my *tentative* TL;DR: would be that it is legit White Supremacist violence.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on November 11, 2020, 12:25:16 pm
No violence from the Trump supporters.  Though when the recounts and court challenges shift things, watch the left come out and be violent again.  Though the cold and the national guard will shut that down fast.  I doubt Trump will put up with their crap anymore in a second term. 

^speaking of smoking meth^
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 12, 2020, 04:54:49 am
That's actually a pretty relevant question.
Just for reference, gogators was quoting a TIME article (https://time.com/5647304/white-nationalist-terrorism-united-states/) which in turn was quoting an article published in 2019 by theAnti-Defamation League (ADL).
I couldn't find a direct link to the article itself, but I believe that this article is a synopsis of it:
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-report-right-wing-extremists-killed-38-people-in-2019-far-surpassing-all
It discussed who the victims were, and links them all to racism-based motives in one way or another.

So I guess my *tentative* TL;DR: would be that it is legit White Supremacist violence.

Just for reference, you're going to fact check a serious post to answer a red herring posing as a question?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 12, 2020, 07:21:59 am
Red herring deserve the truth too!

(https://www.in-sightconsulting.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sad-fish.jpg)

Anyway, the fact-check supports your statement, so, you know, be happy!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 12, 2020, 09:58:22 am
Just for reference, you're going to fact check a serious post to answer a red herring posing as a question?
Inquiring about the methodology regarding a claim is not a "Red Herring", it is called "appropriate scrutiny".
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on November 12, 2020, 11:32:03 am
Though people are fighting to demand the election be fair and fraud examined, I have yet to see and Trump supporters kill anyone, smash businesses, burn down buildings, and violently attack people.  Though given how violent antifa and blm have been I can hardly blame them for being armed.  That said, because the other side thinks they won, they aren't paying these leftist agitators to be out there right now. 

Point is Trump supporters are mostly non violent.  But, the other side are.  When the results flip, they will be out losing their bananas unless it gets too cold this winter. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 12, 2020, 12:05:02 pm
I've read the exact same from the left as well. It's rubbish either way.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 13, 2020, 03:32:08 am
Inquiring about the methodology regarding a claim is not a "Red Herring", it is called "appropriate scrutiny".
It's called a derail.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 13, 2020, 04:55:14 am
Though people are fighting to demand the election be fair and fraud examined, I have yet to see and Trump supporters kill anyone, smash businesses, burn down buildings, and violently attack people.  Though given how violent antifa and blm have been I can hardly blame them for being armed.  That said, because the other side thinks they won, they aren't paying these leftist agitators to be out there right now. 

Point is Trump supporters are mostly non violent.  But, the other side are.  When the results flip, they will be out losing their bananas unless it gets too cold this winter. 

Between 2007-2017 extremists of every stripe have killed 372 Americans. 74 percent of those killings were committed by right wing extremists.
Only 2 percent of those deaths were at the hands of left wing extremists.

From:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/

---

Murder victims of the Alt Right/White Supremacy in 2017:

Heather Heyer
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-heather-heyer-profile/index.html

Taliesin Namkai Meche
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/max_stabbing_victim_attended_r_1.html#incart_big-photo

Ricky Best
http://taskandpurpose.com/ricky-best-one-2-men-killed-portland-stabbing-army-veteran/

Richard Collins III
https://www.thenation.com/article/lynching-university-maryland-campus/

Timothy Caughman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Timothy_Caughman

Srinivas Kuchibhotla
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Olathe,_Kansas_shooting

Casey Marquez & Francisco Fernandez
https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-mexico-school-shooter-had-secret-life-on-pro-trump-white-supremacy-sites

Charles Davis
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/alt-righter-seattle4truth-charged-killing-father-over-conspiracy-theories

Officer Zackari Parrish
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/01/us/colorado-shooting-suspect-military-record/index.html

Buckley Kuhn-Fricker & Scott Fricker
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/teen-charged-with-killing-girlfriends-parents-they-had-worried-he-was-a-neo-nazi/2017/12/23/e2102894-e761-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?utm_term=.32ba34f2ae29

The 6 Victims of the Quebec City mosque shooting:
Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, and Azzedine Soufiane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting

Murder Victims of the Far Left or Antifa in 2017:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 13, 2020, 04:56:34 am
Murder victims of the Alt Right/White Supremacy in 2018:

Blaze Bernstein
https://www.haaretz.com/blaze-bernstein-murder-suspect-displayed-hate-on-social-media-1.5751372

The 17 Victims of the Stoneman Douglas High School Shooting:
Alyssa Alhadeff, Scott Beigel, Martin Duque, Nicholas Dworet, Aaron Feis, Jaime Guttenberg,
Chris Hixon, Luke Hoyer, Cara Loughran, Gina Montalto, Joaquin Oliver, Alaina Petty,
Meadow Pollack, Helena Ramsay, Alex Schachter, Carmen Schentrup, and Peter Wang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting

The 10 Victims of the Santa Fe High School Shooting:
Jared Conard Black, Shana Fisher, Christian Riley Garcia, Aaron Kyle McLeod, Glenda Anne Perkins,
Angelique Ramirez, Sabika Sheikh, Christopher Stone, Cynthia Tisdale, and Kimberly Vaughan
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/18/612286146/shooting-reported-at-high-school-near-houston

The 10 Victims of the Toronto Van Attack
Beutis Renuka Amarasinghe, Andrea Bradden, Geraldine Brady, So He Chung, Anne Marie D'Amico
Mary Elizabeth Forsyth, Chul Min "Eddie" Kang, Ji Hun Kim, Munir Najjar, and Dorothy Sewell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack

Sherell L. Lewis Jr
https://nypost.com/2018/05/31/motorist-brags-about-running-over-some-n-r-on-snapchat/

Jeremy Himmelman & Andrew Oneschuck
https://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/suspect-in-tampa-neo-nazi-killings-returns-from-state-mental-hospital-20190326/

The 5 Victims of the Annapolis Capital Shooting:
Gerald Fischman, Rob Hiaasen, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith, and Wendi Winters
https://bluestatedaily.com/accused-annapolis-shooter-jarrod-ramos-was-inspired-by-the-alt-right-report/

Maurice Stallard & Vickie Lee Jones
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alleged-kroger-gunman-uttered-whites-don-t-kill-whites-witness-n924641

The 11 victims of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting:
Joyce Fienberg, Rich Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal,
Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, & Irving Younger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_synagogue_shooting

Dr. Nancy Van Vessem & Maura Binkley
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/yoga-studio-shooting-florida.html

Murder Victims of the Far Left or Antifa in 2018:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 13, 2020, 05:16:40 am
Murder victims of the Alt Right/White Supremacy in 2020:

The 10 victims of a far right extremist attack in Germany:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/19/shooting-germany-hanau-dead-several-people-shisha-near-frankfurt

Ahmaud Arbery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

Garrett Foster
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

David Patrick Underwood & Damon Gutzwiller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings

Anthony Huber & Joseph Rosenbaum
https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2020/08/26/kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-arrested-antioch-fugitive/

Murder Victims of the Far Left or Antifa in 2020:

Jay Bishop
https://www.newsbreak.com/oregon/portland/news/2051189735143/michael-reinoehl-declares-war-in-social-post-under-investigation-in-portland-trump-rally-murder
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 13, 2020, 05:17:57 am
Alt Right/White Supremacy plots:

The plot to bomb Somali immigrants:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-southwest-kansas-men-sentenced-prison-plotting-bomb-somali-immigrants-garden-city

Cesar Altieri Sayoc Jr AKA the MAGA Bomber:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_United_States_mail_bombing_attempts

The Iowa woman who ran down a teen with a car because she was ‘Mexican’ & also attempted to kill an African American boy
https://www.thedailybeast.com/iowa-woman-nicole-marie-poole-franklin-hit-teen-with-car-because-she-was-mexican-police-say
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/12/24/us/iowa-woman-ran-over-girl-hit-black-child-trnd/index.html

Far Right planned mosque attacks:
https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/483358-far-right-group-in-germany-planned-mosque-attacks-report

Neo-Nazi plot to blow up a hospital:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/neo-nazi-plot-to-blow-up-hospital-is-foiled-by-fbi-b7hgcf936

The Trucker who attempted to run over protestors:
https://www.insider.com/bogdan-vechirko-minneapolis-trucker-has-criminal-past-gave-to-trump-2020-6

The KKK leader who drove a truck into a BLM crowd:
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/06/virginia-man-who-plowed-his-truck-into-black-lives-matter-crowd-is-the-head-of-the-states-ku-klux-klan/

Black woman set on fire by white men:
https://www.revolt.tv/2020/6/25/21303243/black-woman-set-on-fire-madison

Attempted lynching of Vauhxx Booker:
https://bloomingtonian.com/2020/07/05/bloomington-man-threatened-with-noose-during-assault-at-lake-monroe/

Attempted kidnapping plot of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 13, 2020, 05:19:31 am
Twitter suspends account of white nationalist group posing as antifa:
https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-suspends-account-white-nationalist-group-posing-as-antifa/

White supremacy groups try to infiltrate recent protests and influence the narrative:
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/press-play-with-madeleine-brand/la-attorney-resists-the-call-to-reopen-courts-amid-covid-19/white-supremacy-protests

3 with ties to white extremism accused of plotting mayhem at protests:
https://www.ajc.com/news/with-ties-white-extremism-accused-plotting-mayhem-protests/GdtpTjwVaapgVZihVtNWeI/

Far-right extremists showing up at BLM protests behind the violence:
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html

White agitators bringing arson to a George Floyd protest:
https://www.frontpagelive.com/2020/06/04/white-arsonists-george-floyd-protests/

Threat of "lethal violence" from "lone offenders" motivated by race:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/intelligence-bulletin-warning-protest-related-violence-makes-mention/story?id=71166595

Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists:
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/white-supremacists-posing-as-blm-protesters-instigated-richmond-riots-police/

Proud Boys’ brutally beat Black Lives Matter protesters after Trump Parade:
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/watch-proud-boys-brutally-beat-black-lives-matter-protesters-after-trump-parade/

Leaked Messages Show Far-Right Group's Plans for Portland Violence:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/09/23/patriot-coalition-far-right-chat-logs-violence/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/23/oregon-portland-pro-trump-protests-violence-texts

Oregon sheriff tells militia members to "have fun killing antifa"
 https://twitter.com/cascadianphotog/status/1304665240412413957?s=21

Police arrest Proud Boy protester who pointed gun at Portland rally:
https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/30/police-arrest-far-right-protester-who-pointed-gun-at-portland-rally/
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 13, 2020, 05:59:42 am
He's just going to come back a few pages later and regurgitate the same bull about not seeing any violence from Trump supporters.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 16, 2020, 01:30:35 am
Quote
As protests over police brutality and racial justice broke out this summer, often resulting in harsh responses from law enforcement, police officers across the country have been accused of favoring a violent extremist group that took to the streets to oppose those demonstrators.

The latest example of a cozy relationship between law enforcement and the far-right Proud Boys happened in the nation's capital last week when the Metropolitan Police responded to a stabbing involving members of the Proud Boys and an associate.

Provocateur Bevelyn Beatty and the chairman of the Proud Boys, who was with her, told police they were both stabbed by people associated with Black Lives Matter in a street fight early the morning after the presidential election. The Metropolitan Police Department repeated their claim to media outlets, leading to headlines around the country claiming Black Lives Matter had attacked the Proud Boys.

There's no evidence Black Lives Matter had anything to do with the incident. Police officials have since walked back their initial statements, saying it's unclear whether anyone involved was affiliated with political groups.

The department's willingness to echo the accusations of the Proud Boys is another example of law enforcement's deference to the group, said Michael German, a former FBI special agent who is now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program.
So we've got the police supporting these groups, and don't forget the military.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 16, 2020, 02:09:20 am
Remember, these are the same right wing terrorist groups that are KILLING POLICE OFFICERS.

So much for blue lives matter...isn't it ironic that the people the police choose to align themselves with are the ones literally killing them?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 16, 2020, 02:48:58 am
Remember, these are the same right wing terrorist groups that are KILLING POLICE OFFICERS.
Actually these aren't but whatever. Lumping every vaguely right-wing group or person together as a "white nationalist" is as idiotic as lumping every Iraqi with an AK-47 together as a "terrorist."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 16, 2020, 02:50:48 am
Twitter suspends account of white nationalist group posing as antifa:
https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-suspends-account-white-nationalist-group-posing-as-antifa/

White supremacy groups try to infiltrate recent protests and influence the narrative:
https://www.kcrw.com/news/shows/press-play-with-madeleine-brand/la-attorney-resists-the-call-to-reopen-courts-amid-covid-19/white-supremacy-protests

3 with ties to white extremism accused of plotting mayhem at protests:
https://www.ajc.com/news/with-ties-white-extremism-accused-plotting-mayhem-protests/GdtpTjwVaapgVZihVtNWeI/

Far-right extremists showing up at BLM protests behind the violence:
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article243553662.html

White agitators bringing arson to a George Floyd protest:
https://www.frontpagelive.com/2020/06/04/white-arsonists-george-floyd-protests/

Threat of "lethal violence" from "lone offenders" motivated by race:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/intelligence-bulletin-warning-protest-related-violence-makes-mention/story?id=71166595

Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists:
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/07/white-supremacists-posing-as-blm-protesters-instigated-richmond-riots-police/

Proud Boys’ brutally beat Black Lives Matter protesters after Trump Parade:
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/09/watch-proud-boys-brutally-beat-black-lives-matter-protesters-after-trump-parade/

Leaked Messages Show Far-Right Group's Plans for Portland Violence:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2020/09/23/patriot-coalition-far-right-chat-logs-violence/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/23/oregon-portland-pro-trump-protests-violence-texts

Oregon sheriff tells militia members to "have fun killing antifa"
 https://twitter.com/cascadianphotog/status/1304665240412413957?s=21

Police arrest Proud Boy protester who pointed gun at Portland rally:
https://www.opb.org/article/2020/09/30/police-arrest-far-right-protester-who-pointed-gun-at-portland-rally/
Good now do a list of left-wing incidents. You get the same smattering of fringe lunatics that have little to do with, nor are representative of the left.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 16, 2020, 08:31:34 am
Actually these aren't but whatever. Lumping every vaguely right-wing group or person together as a "white nationalist" is as idiotic as lumping every Iraqi with an AK-47 together as a "terrorist."

Of course they aren't.

Based off nothing but your own conjecture, your ignoring the fact that the proud boys leadership openly came out as white supremacist last week (surprise!)...and of course you ignoring every bit of information presented to you demonstrating these groups as the right wing white nationalists they are.

But you apparently refuse to believe this because some of them might have worn a peace symbol on their clothing at some point, and some might also have black/latino/asian/lgbtq/Jewish friends.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 16, 2020, 11:17:34 am
Of course they aren't.

Based off nothing but your own conjecture, your ignoring the fact that the proud boys leadership openly came out as white supremacist last week (surprise!)...and of course you ignoring every bit of information presented to you demonstrating these groups as the right wing white nationalists they are.

But you apparently refuse to believe this because some of them might have worn a peace symbol on their clothing at some point, and some might also have black/latino/asian/lgbtq/Jewish friends.
You said "these are the same groups that killed police officers"

You lumped them all together.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 16, 2020, 11:37:29 am
Proud Boys...Boogaloo Bois = right wing extremist terrorist (and white supremacist) GROUPS.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on November 16, 2020, 11:50:19 am
Antifa...BLM...othe r Marxist groups.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on November 16, 2020, 01:38:02 pm
Antifa...BLM...other Marxist groups.

I have never, ever, even one time heard a BLM person advocate for the dissolution of privately-owned business in favor of workers' control of the means of production. 

My impression is they want honky cops to hang up poppin' on bruthahs.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 16, 2020, 02:53:13 pm
I have never, ever, even one time heard a BLM person advocate for the dissolution of privately-owned business in favor of workers' control of the means of production. 

My impression is they want honky cops to hang up poppin' on bruthahs.
Some do advocate for forced redistribution of wealth and resources, particularly along racial lines.

In fairness pretty much everything in one way or another is a forced redistribution of wealth and resources. Is alleged racial victimhood any better or worse than any other reason given?

So their reasoning is probably as valid as any others. I just suspect their execution would be deeply flawed and unsustainable.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 16, 2020, 02:54:26 pm
Proud Boys...Boogaloo Bois = right wing extremist terrorist (and white supremacist) GROUPS.
Iraqi Resistance....Sadda m=Al-Qaeda!

The same dumb logic that people always use to tie together various ideological organizations that they disagree worth. Kevin Bacon them to the single worst example.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on November 16, 2020, 03:08:49 pm
Some do advocate for forced redistribution of wealth and resources, particularly along racial lines.

Well, I am a philatelist.  I like to read books, too.  While at a philatelist's convention, i would not talk of my love of reading books (unless those books were about stamp).

A person can be a BLM member and a Marxist, but redistributing wealth talk would be divergent from BLMming.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 16, 2020, 04:53:12 pm
Iraqi Resistance....Sadda m=Al-Qaeda!

The same dumb logic that people always use to tie together various ideological organizations that they disagree worth. Kevin Bacon them to the single worst example.

Keep going.

You, obviously in your infinite knowledge on the matter, know better than those actually researching said groups.

And you definitely know more about said groups than the groups themselves...taking their actions and beliefs into account.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 16, 2020, 10:20:37 pm
Actually these aren't but whatever. Lumping every vaguely right-wing group or person together as a "white nationalist" is as idiotic as lumping every Iraqi with an AK-47 together as a "terrorist."
Back to the bad analogies I see.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 16, 2020, 10:25:55 pm
"Mr Shawn called out the sign in the broadcast stating, “We just saw a very disturbing sign, it said, 'Coming for Blacks and Indians first, welcome to the New World Order.

The footage being broadcasted was from the Million MAGA March that was held in Washington D.C. on Saturday."

Then there's Parler. Check it out for some real hate.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 17, 2020, 12:08:28 am
A WH official calling for insurrection:
"A White House coronavirus adviser has urged residents in the state of Michigan to "rise up" against measures introduced to curb the coronavirus as infections soar across the country.

"The only way this stops is if people rise up," Scott Atlas said on Twitter yesterday. "You get what you accept. #FreedomMatters #StepUp.""

I wonder is Scott is angling for a spot on Fox or Newsmax?

Charles Atlas would have never stood for this.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on November 17, 2020, 10:14:01 am
"The Million MAGA March took place on Saturday. On the one hand, there were tens of thousands of Trump supporters who showed up. They were cheerful, left no mess, sang, chanted 'USA,' and prayed. Many children were there with their families. On the other hand, the BLM and Antifa crowd appeared too, when many Trump supporters had gone home. Like hyenas picking off the young in a herd, the BLM and Antifa supporters brutally attacked people, including children and the elderly."
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/the_million_maga_march_showed_the_battle_lines_in_america.html

Violence and intolerance come from people who oppose Trump. His supporters are peaceful.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on November 17, 2020, 10:20:40 am
Left-wing extremists tussling with right-wing extremists the night after a political protest march. Wow, who'd've thought?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 17, 2020, 11:25:27 am
Keep going.

You, obviously in your infinite knowledge on the matter, know better than those actually researching said groups.

And you definitely know more about said groups than the groups themselves...taking their actions and beliefs into account.
Those "researching" said groups have an ideological motivation and are selective with what they report and how they present the data.

I do know that lumping broad swaths of the right-wing together is incredibly clumsy and crude.

Would you do the same with say, Middle Eastern groups? Irish Nationalist groups? Black groups?

Why is this only valid in the case of right-wing American groups?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 17, 2020, 11:48:17 am


Violence and intolerance come from people who oppose Trump. His supporters are peaceful.

Yes let's just ignore all the people murdered by the alt-right in the name of Trump during the last 4 years.

I'm sure Martin will now waddle in and claim that it was all lone wolf isolated incidents, even though it keeps happening over and over and over again.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on November 17, 2020, 01:07:15 pm
Those "researching" said groups have an ideological motivation and are selective with what they report and how they present the data.

I do know that lumping broad swaths of the right-wing together is incredibly clumsy and crude.

Would you do the same with say, Middle Eastern groups? Irish Nationalist groups? Black groups?

Why is this only valid in the case of right-wing American groups?

Proud boys...White supremacists who want a white ethnostate

Boogaloo Bois...white supremacists who want a white ethnostate

Go on...tell us how they're "different" and actually just leftists who are confused and/or cosplaying.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on November 17, 2020, 01:42:37 pm
Yes let's just ignore all the people murdered by the alt-right in the name of Trump during the last 4 years.

I'm sure Martin will now waddle in and claim that it was all lone wolf isolated incidents, even though it keeps happening over and over and over again.
"In the name of Trump"???

Such as? Even then, what does that have to do with anything? Did Trump order them? No.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 20, 2020, 06:23:36 am
Quote
President Donald Trump’s false accusations that voter fraud denied him reelection are causing escalating confrontations in swing states across the country, leading to threats of violence against officials in both parties and subverting even the most routine steps in the electoral process.

In Arizona on Wednesday, the Democratic secretary of state, Katie Hobbs, issued a statement lamenting the “consistent and systematic undermining of trust” in the elections and called on Republican officials to stop “perpetuating misinformation.” She described threats against her and her family in the aftermath of Joe Biden’s victory over Trump in her state.

In Georgia, where Biden holds a narrow lead that is expected to stand through a recount concluding Wednesday night, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, has said he, too, received menacing messages. He also said he felt pressured by Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to search for ways to disqualify votes.

The only thing that would satisfy some of these folks is outright civil war.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on November 20, 2020, 05:37:17 pm
"In the name of Trump"???

Such as? Even then, what does that have to do with anything? Did Trump order them? No.

You guys are trying to get English teachers in Korea to be deathly afraid of hypothetical "Antifa" violence.

But you don't care when white supremacists kill liberals again and again after saying that they wish violence upon liberals specifically because they hate liberals and that they love Trump because he speaks for them. If you don't want to look bad maybe don't participate in a tradition of violent, homicidal fascism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 20, 2020, 09:13:02 pm
“Trump’s Attempts to Overturn the Election Are Unparalleled in U.S. History“
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/19/us/politics/trump-election.html

Quote
President Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election are unprecedented in American history and an even more audacious use of brute political force to gain the White House than when Congress gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency during Reconstruction.

Mr. Trump’s chances of succeeding are somewhere between remote and impossible, and a sign of his desperation after President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. won by nearly six million popular votes and counting, as well as a clear Electoral College margin. Yet the fact that Mr. Trump is even trying has set off widespread alarms, not least in Mr. Biden’s camp.

“I’m confident he knows he hasn’t won,” Mr. Biden said at a news conference in Wilmington, Del., on Thursday, before adding, “It’s just outrageous what he’s doing.” Although Mr. Biden dismissed Mr. Trump’s behavior as embarrassing, he acknowledged that “incredibly damaging messages are being sent to the rest of the world about how democracy functions.”

Mr. Trump has only weeks to make his last-ditch effort work: Most of the states he needs to strip Mr. Biden of votes are scheduled to certify their electors by the beginning of next week. The electors cast their ballots on Dec. 14, and Congress opens them in a joint session on Jan. 6.

Even if Mr. Trump somehow pulled off his electoral vote switch, there are other safeguards in place, assuming people in power do not simply bend to the president’s will.

The first test will be Michigan, where Mr. Trump is trying to get the State Legislature to overturn Mr. Biden’s 157,000-vote margin of victory. He has taken the extraordinary step of inviting a delegation of state Republican leaders to the White House, hoping to persuade them to ignore the popular vote outcome.
...
Mr. Trump has fired the federal election official who has challenged his false claims of fraud, tried to halt the vote-certification process in Detroit to disenfranchise an overwhelmingly Black electorate that voted against him, and now is misusing the powers of his office in his effort to take Michigan’s 16 electoral votes away from Mr. Biden.
...
“This is a manufactured crisis. It is a president abusing his huge powers in order to stay in office after the voters clearly rejected him for re-election.”

He added: “This is what many of the founders dreaded.”

Mr. Trump telegraphed this strategy during the campaign...

And yet over 70 million people voted for this unrepentant scoundrel, and would probably do it again if given the chance. Absolute insanity.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 21, 2020, 09:38:45 am
“Wisconsin recount live: Dane County election officials reject initial attempts to throw out ballots“
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/11/20/live-updates-wisconsin-election-recount-dane-milwaukee-counties/6353846002/

Quote
President Donald Trump’s campaign sought to throw out tens of thousands of ballots Friday in Dane County as it got its recount under way, but election officials rejected the effort.

Christ Troupis, a representative for Trump’s campaign, told the Dane County Board of Canvassers it should eliminate all in-person early votes; all mailed-in absentee ballots if written applications for them could not be tracked down; all votes submitted by those who say they are indefinitely confined; and all absentee ballots where clerks wrote in the addresses of witnesses.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on November 21, 2020, 01:42:24 pm
It's your fault for taking him seriously

But *I was told* during the 2016 campaign to take him seriously, not literally.  :cry:

So he’s seriously trying to steal the election (“Stop the Steal!” omfg) but he’s not literally going to say so in any of his fraudulent lawsuits, because they wouldn’t get the joke?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on November 21, 2020, 11:08:38 pm
Quote
Brett Fryar is a middle-class Republican. A 50-year-old chiropractor in this west Texas town, he owns a small business. He has two undergraduate degrees and a master’s degree, in organic chemistry. He attends Southcrest Baptist Church in nearby Lubbock.

Fryar didn’t much like Donald Trump at first, during the U.S. president’s 2016 campaign. He voted for Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the Republican primaries.

Now, Fryar says he would go to war for Trump. He has joined the newly formed South Plains Patriots, a group of a few hundred members that includes a “reactionary” force of about three dozen - including Fryar and his son, Caleb - who conduct firearms training.

Nothing will convince Fryar and many others here in Sundown - including the town’s mayor, another Patriots member - that Democrat Joe Biden won the Nov. 3 presidential election fairly. They believe Trump’s stream of election-fraud allegations and say they’re preparing for the possibility of a “civil war” with the American political left.

"If President Trump comes out and says: 'Guys, I have irrefutable proof of fraud, the courts won't listen, and I'm now calling on Americans to take up arms,' we would go," said Fryar, wearing a button-down shirt, pressed slacks and a paisley tie during a recent interview at his office.

The unshakable trust in Trump in this town of about 1,400 residents reflects a national phenomenon among many Republicans, despite the absence of evidence in a barrage of post-election lawsuits by the president and his allies. About half of Republicans polled by Reuters/Ipsos said Trump “rightfully won” the election but had it stolen from him in systemic fraud favoring Biden, according to a survey conducted between Nov. 13 and 17. Just 29% of Republicans said Biden rightfully won. Other polls since the election have reported that an even higher proportion - up to 80% - of Republicans trust Trump’s baseless fraud narrative.

All that education and still unable to think for oneself. It's really a shame.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on December 02, 2020, 08:29:51 am
People who oppose Trump are more violent and intolerant.

Social experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeOkybuCXX0
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on December 02, 2020, 08:45:18 am
Salads? The
People who oppose Trump are more violent and intolerant.

Social experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7AmS0rawTY
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 02, 2020, 11:02:38 am
People who oppose Trump are more violent and intolerant.


I've already posted in this topic about the hundreds of people murdered by alt-right Trump supporters, but like a robot you just keep posting crap along the lines of "oxygen makes your hair grow, change my mind stupid libz."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 02, 2020, 02:38:57 pm
You've posted about various right-wing murders that have occurred, including some dating back to 2007 as well as many having occurred in other countries. You also posted about those who expressed little interest in Trump.

You then tied them all together and labeled them "alt-right Trump supporters", same as dipshits did when they tied together any incident of violence that had even the most vaguest of Islamic motivations and labeled them "Bin-Laden supporters."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 03, 2020, 11:34:32 am
He's just going to come back a few pages later and regurgitate the same bull about not seeing any violence from Trump supporters.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 03, 2020, 12:12:00 pm

0
You are the person trying to link murders in 2007 to Trump.

Looking through the list you take some serious leaps on a lot of those to tie them to Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on December 03, 2020, 07:32:05 pm
"Even as prominent Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, began to grudgingly acknowledge that Joe Biden will be the next president, a noisy grassroots movement devoted to keeping Donald Trump in office seemed to be edging closer to advocating seizing power in what would amount to a coup d’état.

The day after a group run by a local Ohio tea party leader took out a full-page ad in the Washington Times calling on Trump to declare martial law and have the military oversee a redo of the presidential election using only paper ballots — a call echoed in a tweet by Gen. Michael Flynn — a raucous “Stop the Steal” rally in suburban Atlanta urged Trump supporters to descend on the statehouse on Thursday and demand the resignations of Georgia’s governor and secretary of state. In a press release announcing the ad published Tuesday by We the People Convention, the group’s president, Tom Zawistowski, said, “We wanted to express our concerns to the President, to the legislators, courts and Congress that We the People will NOT cede our exclusive Constitutional right to elect our Representatives to judges, lawyers, courts, Governors, Secretary’s of State, Congress, corrupt election officials and local politicians, the corrupt media — or Leftist threats of violence!”

“I will see you tomorrow at the state Capitol,” attorney and Trump ally L. Lin Wood told the crowd who had gathered to hear him and former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell speak in Alpharetta, Ga., on Wednesday. “Stay mad as hell! We’re not going to take it anymore!”

They're talking about civil war. Pure and simple.

That's the reactionary right for you.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 04, 2020, 11:23:06 am
0
You are the person trying to link murders in 2007 to Trump.

Looking through the list you take some serious leaps on a lot of those to tie them to Trump.

That was from the snopes article, pretty sure all the individual urls I listed after that were from 2017 to present. But no please keep pretending to be dumb by insisting that right-wingers aren't violent or homicidal when they keep getting caught attacking or killing liberals/minorities/immigrants over and over again and admitting that they did it because they hate liberals/minorities/immigrants and like Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 04, 2020, 12:01:35 pm
Here's another one.
Michael Flynn calls for Trump to suspend the constitution and declare martial law to re-run election,

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/michael-flynn-suspend-constitution-martial-law-trump-reelection-b1765467.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/michael-flynn-suspend-constitution-martial-law-trump-reelection-b1765467.html)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 04, 2020, 01:41:18 pm
That was from the snopes article, pretty sure all the individual urls I listed after that were from 2017 to present. But no please keep pretending to be dumb by insisting that right-wingers aren't violent or homicidal when they keep getting caught attacking or killing liberals/minorities/immigrants over and over again and admitting that they did it because they hate liberals/minorities/immigrants and like Trump.



Quote
Taliesin Namkai Meche
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/max_stabbing_victim_attended_r_1.html#incart_big-photo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Portland_train_attack

"At times he expressed support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, although he wrote that he did not vote"

So why is this Trump's fault and not Bernie's?

Quote
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/lynching-university-maryland-campus/
The author claims a direct link to Trump, yet provides no evidence of one. Also, many of these noose incidents and such have been debunked.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Timothy_Caughman
Jackson also voted for Obama. Why is Obama not responsible?

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Olathe,_Kansas_shooting
No evidence cited in the article about the person being motivated by Trump

Quote
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/alt-righter-seattle4truth-charged-killing-father-over-conspiracy-theories
Seems he was more motivated by past mass shooters than ideology

Quote
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/alt-righter-seattle4truth-charged-killing-father-over-conspiracy-theories
Nothing in the article mentions Trump

Quote
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/01/us/colorado-shooting-suspect-military-record/index.html
Nothing about the shooting mentions Trump

Quote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/teen-charged-with-killing-girlfriends-parents-they-had-worried-he-was-a-neo-nazi/2017/12/23/e2102894-e761-11e7-833f-155031558ff4_story.html?utm_term=.32ba34f2ae29
Again, not one mention of Trump.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting
Now here we do have outright support of Trump, finally. Also, the dude is Canadian. Also, apparently he was a big fan of Ben Shapiro. The white nationalist who is also a fan of the Orthodox Jew. I think "a few screws loose" might be the more apt description, but yes, you finally found a clear-cut Trump supporter.

Quote
Heather Heyer
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/charlottesville-heather-heyer-profile/index.html
Notice that the offender was motivated by what he "perceived" to be Trump's racial views, not what Trump's views actually are. It's not Trump's fault both Neo-Nazis and leftists misinterpret his views.

But anyways, glad to see you share the same view of Trump as Neo-Nazis.

The bulk of your examples lack any ties to Trump. You can't blame Trump when he isn't even cited as a factor.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 04, 2020, 08:06:54 pm
Imagine being dumb enough to think that everyone at the Charlottesville Klan Rally and the guy who murdered Heather Heyer weren't devoted to Trump.

Anyway....

(https://gamefaqs1.cbsistatic.com/user_image/4/9/2/AAB6EeAABMDE.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 05, 2020, 09:46:03 am
Imagine being dumb enough to think that everyone at the Charlottesville Klan Rally and the guy who murdered Heather Heyer weren't devoted to Trump.
Quite the goalpost move from hundreds to.....one.

And newsflash- Most White Supremacists and Nazis think Trump is full of it because he has a Jewish son-in-law and did criminal justice reform.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on December 05, 2020, 12:20:21 pm
Quite the goalpost move from hundreds to.....one.

And newsflash- Most White Supremacists and Nazis think Trump is full of it because he has a Jewish son-in-law and did criminal justice reform.

I didn't know that you had the lowdown on white supremacist groups to conduct a poll on "How Nazi do you think Trump is?"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 05, 2020, 12:45:19 pm
And apparently he's a gatekeeper who gets to insist that you can only be a fascist if you're antisemitic. And ignore the fact that antisemites still love Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 05, 2020, 02:20:38 pm
Quite the goalpost move from hundreds to.....one.

And newsflash- Most White Supremacists and Nazis think Trump is full of it because he has a Jewish son-in-law and did criminal justice reform.

Any chance of a link to some multi-variant data to support this claim ?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on December 05, 2020, 03:36:50 pm
And apparently he's a gatekeeper who gets to insist that you can only be a fascist if you're antisemitic. And ignore the fact that antisemites still love Trump.

I don't get this. Does it mean that Trump is or isn't a facist?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 06, 2020, 04:09:28 am
I don't get this. Does it mean that Trump is or isn't a facist?
I know google is part of the deep state conspiracy, lol,  but a search for 'fine people' might help to answer your question.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hippo on December 06, 2020, 06:25:32 am
There’s some pros and cons on how to react to Trump,

https://politics.theonion.com/should-republicans-distance-themselves-from-trump-or-do-1845456582 (https://politics.theonion.com/should-republicans-distance-themselves-from-trump-or-do-1845456582)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 06, 2020, 10:54:15 am
I know google is part of the deep state conspiracy, lol,  but a search for 'fine people' might help to answer your question.  :laugh:
Good, now google the full transcript of the interview in which he explicitly states that he condemns Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists.

You do realize the media deliberately left that out and chopped things up just to sensationalize the story, right?

Or did you stupidly believe that Trump actually did call Neo-Nazis fine people? Only a gullible idiot would accept that claim at face value. Anyone with a brain would check to see if the quote was altered or edited, which it was.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 06, 2020, 11:00:04 am
I didn't know that you had the lowdown on white supremacist groups to conduct a poll on "How Nazi do you think Trump is?"

Dude, take a scan on 4Chan or Stormfront. By and large they are "blackpilled" on Trump.

Sure some right-wing nutcases believe CNN and MSNBC that Trump is actually a Nazi. They're low-information types and gullible, just like many anti-Trumpers.

Glad to see you agree with nutcase far-right lunatics.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on December 06, 2020, 11:13:23 am
As Swift said

Quote
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hippo on December 06, 2020, 12:33:06 pm
 https://reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/comments/k788zx/let_me_tell_you_bout_my_best_friend/ (https://reddit.com/r/gifsthatkeepongiving/comments/k788zx/let_me_tell_you_bout_my_best_friend/)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 06, 2020, 01:56:06 pm
blah blah blah media conspiracy

blah blah blah fake news

blah blah blah Trump Nazis

You do realize dog whistling  is a thing don't you?
The Proud Boys can hear it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 06, 2020, 02:19:20 pm
You do realize dog whistling  is a thing don't you?
The Proud Boys can hear it.
BBC fact checked it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53858940

Quote
According to a transcript of a press conference on 15 August, President Trump did say - when asked about the presence of neo-Nazis at the rally - "you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

During the same press conference, Mr Trump went on to say "I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally."

Why is it so hard to admit you fell for a deceptive edit and "gotcha" moment? We've seen those things used by both sides since the 1980s. What you think this is new?

The great thing about "dog whistling" is you can declare anything to be a dog whistle, whether it is or isn't.

Verbal diarrhea Trump clumsily answered a question, then clarified, which the media selectively edited and distorted for ratings. No dog whistle. Clear as day.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 07, 2020, 01:02:00 am
BBC fact checked it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53858940

Why is it so hard to admit you fell for a deceptive edit and "gotcha" moment? We've seen those things used by both sides since the 1980s. What you think this is new?

The great thing about "dog whistling" is you can declare anything to be a dog whistle, whether it is or isn't.

Verbal diarrhea Trump clumsily answered a question, then clarified, which the media selectively edited and distorted for ratings. No dog whistle. Clear as day.

Yes dude. It 's an effective form of Orwellian propaganda to simultaneously condemn hatred and bigotry, and indulge in said bigotry, in celebration of violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/07/charlottesville-james-fields-guilty-murder-heather-heyer (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/07/charlottesville-james-fields-guilty-murder-heather-heyer)

The MAGA crew lap it up. You would recall what he said about Mexicans in a similar vein. There shouldn't be any need for quotes, I'm sure you'll recall it. 

Mind you, I take it you won't be providing any evidence of your previous bs claims.
Quote
'newsflash- Most White Supremacists and Nazis think Trump is full of it'
You're starting to come across as another victim of his gaslighting.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 07, 2020, 02:35:05 am
Gaslighting and propaganda is when Trump says

"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

and you and the media, through selective edits, try to say he said neo-Nazis and white nationalists were "fine people."

Why is it so hard for you to admit that what you think happened, didn't happen?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on December 07, 2020, 03:07:36 am
Quote
Mind you, I take it you won't be providing any evidence of your previous bs claims.
Quote
'newsflash- Most White Supremacists and Nazis think Trump is full of it'

Gaslighting and propaganda is when Trump says

"I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally"

and you and the media, through selective edits, try to say he said neo-Nazis and white nationalists were "fine people."



I guess that's a no to evidence of your previous bogus claims then!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on December 07, 2020, 09:18:34 am
The real problem with potential for violence will come and has come from Antifa.  They show up at some stop the steal rallies and try to bully people demanding a fair vote. 

When the voter fraud potentially gets exposed (maybe it will be successfully covered up?), that's when Antifa and other violent Marxist groups like BLM and others will lose their shit.

Unless this woman who was there is lying?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZnOUYciDnc
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on December 07, 2020, 09:20:21 am
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThKpWTQWWZ0
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on December 07, 2020, 09:31:55 am
Unless this woman who was there is lying?
From what I understand, each ballot has a registration number/barcode. They can be scanned multiple times, but each registration number is counted only once. She's probably not lying, but it doesn't matter: you can scan a ballot a gazillion times, and it will only ever count as one vote.

If people would just bother to read on how the counting process actually work, then they'd realise that many of these 'conspiracies' and 'evidence of fraud' have been considered before hand and preemptively dealt with. Voting security in the USA is surprisingly good.

https://www.vox.com/21546213/election-2020-how-votes-counted-ballots-mail-in

Another explanation about what happens if a voter receives multiple voting papers, or if a single paper is scanned more than once:
https://www.wesa.fm/post/glitch-sends-duplicate-ballots-voters-system-prevents-double-voting-county-says#stream/0
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 07, 2020, 01:38:25 pm
I guess that's a no to evidence of your previous bogus claims then!
I'm not going to link to Stormfront...

But take a walk over. Some think Trump is "one of them." Many of them think Trump is "Better than Hillary/Biden" and that's about it and the rest think he's well, it's just some really offensive stuff.

How do you think his daughter being married to a Jew, carte blanche support of Israel, him working in entertainment, and his constant pandering to black celebrities is perceived by these people? If you think anything other than "Not well", you're an idiot and you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to how extremists view the world.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 07, 2020, 06:35:45 pm
I don't get this. Does it mean that Trump is or isn't a facist?

I know, let's ask known racist stoat. Only he can tell us whether someone is a racist or a fascist.

I mean seriously guys, nobody here cares if the resident fascists and racists repeatedly deny the fact that they are fascists and racists. You can stop pretending that you care about what we think of you. We know what you are.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 07, 2020, 07:00:35 pm
I know, let's ask known racist stoat. Only he can tell us whether someone is a racist or a fascist.

I mean seriously guys, nobody here cares if the resident fascists and racists repeatedly deny the fact that they are fascists and racists. You can stop pretending that you care about what we think of you. We know what you are.
That's rich coming from you, a poster who has a tendency to say bigoted things about Koreans that would get you booted out of any left-leaning meeting back home and branded a racist on campus.

You do realize that right? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks "I vote Democrat, therefore I can't be a bigot"?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on December 07, 2020, 07:09:23 pm
Quote
I know, let's ask known racist stoat.

Quote a single racist thing I've ever said on here or apologise and STFU about it henceforth
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on December 08, 2020, 12:38:52 am
Quote
Dozens of armed people gathered outside Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's home over the weekend "shouting obscenities" and threatening violence in an effort to overturn the presidential election results in the state, she said Sunday.

Benson and her 4-year-old son had just finished decorating their home for Christmas and were about to watch "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" when the group arrived, she said in a statement.

"The demands made outside my home were unambiguous, loud and threatening," she said. "They targeted me in my role as Michigan's Chief Election Officer.

"Through threats of violence, intimidation and bullying, the armed people outside my home and their political allies seek to undermine and silence the will and voices of every voter in this state, no matter who they voted for," she said.

Gabriel Sterling, a top Republican elections official in Georgia, said last week that President Donald Trump's repeated false claims that the election was stolen from him had led to death threats, intimidation and harassment.
I'd put the potential at high.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on December 08, 2020, 03:42:55 pm
That's rich coming from you, a poster who has a tendency to say bigoted things about Koreans that would get you booted out of any left-leaning meeting back home and branded a racist on campus.

You do realize that right? Or are you one of those idiots who thinks "I vote Democrat, therefore I can't be a bigot"?

As usual you think criticisms of Korea are automatically racist attacks on Koreans. And we were talking about the fact that stoat is a racist. Or do you want us to talk again about the fact that you have spent years blindly defending one of the biggest racists on the planet.

Quote a single racist thing I've ever said on here or apologise and STFU about it henceforth

You've said many times that most criminals are black people. And now you'll deny that that is racist, because for some reason we're supposed to only let racists decide whether they are racist or not.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 08, 2020, 04:06:04 pm
As usual you think criticisms of Korea are automatically racist attacks on Koreans.
Your "criticisms" are at times little more than rants that have all the hallmarks of bigotry. You know, those "dogwhistles" you are so found of talking about.

If you think those are just "criticisms" why don't you go say them, word for word, at some Dem party office as you try to volunteer. See what happens. You'll be thrown out in a matter of minutes.

Do you think anyone on this site considers you a bastion of tolerance and racial progress? Instead of attacking other posters, maybe you need to clean up your own act.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on December 08, 2020, 04:09:51 pm
Quote
You've said many times that most criminals are black people. And now you'll deny that that is racist, because for some reason we're supposed to only let racists decide whether they are racist or not.

You mean I quoted FBI statistics like these, in the context of police brutality in the US.  Which you have to do in any reasoned discussion on whether black people are disproportionately mistreated by US police. I guess to morons like you that would make me a racist, others can judge for themselves.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43



Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on December 09, 2020, 07:25:45 am
Instead of attacking other posters, maybe you need to clean up your own act.
Pot, meet kettle.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on December 09, 2020, 10:43:31 pm
Cuomo opened his CNN show on Tuesday with a damning critique of Trump backer Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who this week fanned the flames of animosity by claiming “there is a civil war brewing in Georgia” and that it’s unreasonable to “sit on your ass and do nothing when you got a chance to save the country.”

Cuomo noted that Graham has plenty of company from other Trump allies. “Did you see the tweets from Arizona’s Republican Party? It’s calling on Americans to die for Trump,” he said. “Literally inciting violence on its official Twitter account, posting a clip from ‘Rambo.’”
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on December 11, 2020, 09:13:29 pm
    Dozens of Trump supporters, some armed, went to the home of Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Democratic secretary of state, and began shouting obscenities.
    On Twitter, Trump supporters have posted photographs of the home of Ann Jacobs, a Wisconsin official, and mentioned her children.
    In Phoenix, about 100 Trump supporters, some armed, protested at the building where officials were counting votes.
    In Vermont, officials received a voice message threatening them with “execution by firing squad.”
    Seth Bluestein, a Philadelphia official, received anti-Semitic and violent threats after Pam Bondi, a Trump ally, publicly mentioned him.
    A Georgia poll worker went into hiding after a viral video falsely claimed he had discarded ballots.
    Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, and his wife have received death threats, including by text message, and caravans have circled their house.
    Gabriel Sterling, another Georgia official, received a message wishing him a happy birthday and saying it would be his last.

I
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Don Hobak on December 11, 2020, 10:37:26 pm
Gabriel Sterling, another Georgia official, received a message wishing him a happy birthday

See? Good people.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on December 12, 2020, 10:26:15 am
yeah, but how do we know these aren't actually ANTIFA COMMUNIST MARXIST GENDERLESS M*SL*MS??

the illermernatti have their tentacles everwherre and maybe these are their agents.

if they happen to be actual trump supporters...i'm pretty sure it's all a big inside joke *wink wink*...libs are famous for not being able to take a joke
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: hangook77 on December 14, 2020, 07:55:37 am
Antifa is always out for a fight and to intimidate and bully people. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on December 14, 2020, 10:51:45 am
Antifa are the same as "NAZIS!!!!!!" An overhyped threat that the other side uses to wind up supporters and also Kevin Bacon's various people/groups/politicians to.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on December 14, 2020, 11:07:15 am
To be fair, Kevin Bacon *was* a Nazi.

(https://pm1.narvii.com/6358/4593005cbafb12cc4665f016cd72d821fba4fb0b_hq.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 07, 2021, 05:30:01 am

Violence and intolerance come from people who oppose Trump. His supporters are peaceful.

Well this post aged well.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 07, 2021, 06:26:35 am
Trump supporters are worse than BLM protesters. Period!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 07, 2021, 09:18:46 am
Kyndo?  Hello?

You freely shift around and delete posts in threads where the drift was organic and natural, but  ...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: VanIslander on January 07, 2021, 09:23:01 am
I feel there's a lot less potential for violence in my life in South Korea than back home.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 07, 2021, 09:27:51 am
The potential for violence in Canada, America, and the rest of the West is very small. Nothing’s gonna happen to you in all likelihood.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 07, 2021, 09:34:47 am
Kyndo?  Hello?
You freely shift around and delete posts in threads where the drift was organic and natural, but  ...
Yep. I recently shifted several off-topic comments from one thread to another thread where they would be completely on topic. It seemed like something worth doing despite, as you say, that it's all unpaid labour.  :sad:

And while I don't believe that people are quite as invested in a discussion about bananas as they are about things like identity, legal issues, and gender politics, I'll go ahead and make a new topic thread and move the relevant comments there. Even though it's a lot of work. Lot's and lot's and lot's of work...  :sad:


https://www.waygook.org/index.php?topic=121205.0
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 07, 2021, 09:39:27 am
No need to make a new thread. Just put it in the Friday’s pointless ramblings thread. Or just leave it here. America hating Aussie Adel was trying to say the USA is a banana republic. (Which it’s not.) Instead of dignifying that with a response, we discussed bananas.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 09:40:29 am
 To be fair my post was on the topic of banana republics and completely relevant to the shenanigans in Washington at present and the title of this thread!  ;D

Perhaps I should've posted a video devoid of my own commentary.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 07, 2021, 11:46:14 am
(https://scontent-ssn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/136395046_10224851979397125_2726241814245937876_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=OR-wIKUt-KcAX9wp7qt&_nc_ht=scontent-ssn1-1.xx&oh=efca4fb480736af6ef7f3724b250d77d&oe=601BE7DA)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 11:53:54 am
By the Super Bowl, this will all be forgotten. If this happened in France, no one would bat an eye. You had tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands there. Several hundred went stupid, one person was shot. Then everyone went home.

Yawn.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 07, 2021, 12:31:28 pm
I'm fairly sure it would be a pretty big deal in France, actually.
Coup d'etats are pretty rare in the West. Even attempted ones are few and far between.
 The last coup attempt in France is still being taught in school, and that was, what, 60 years ago?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mister Tim on January 07, 2021, 12:44:09 pm
By the Super Bowl, this will all be forgotten. If this happened in France, no one would bat an eye. You had tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands there. Several hundred went stupid, one person was shot. Then everyone went home.

Yawn.

I can 100% understand urging people to remain grounded and trying to engender a measured response, but I'm not really sure "yawn" is an appropriate response to everything that happened today.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 12:48:09 pm
By the Super Bowl, this will all be forgotten. If this happened in France, no one would bat an eye. You had tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands there. Several hundred went stupid, one person was shot. Then everyone went home.

Yawn.

(https://thehill.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_full/public/housebarracade_01062021getty_0.jpg?itok=lkFbEkCJ)

 I guess they were just BB guns!

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2021/01/06/PDTN/7f44c164-e8bf-4388-8975-0c036213e1f1-AP21006732132228.jpg?crop=720,442,x189,y0&width=660&height=406&format=pjpg&auto=webp)

# insurrection
noun
: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 12:50:21 pm
I'm fairly sure it would be a pretty big deal in France, actually.
Coup d'etats are pretty rare in the West. Even attempted ones are few and far between.
 The last coup attempt in France is still being taught in school, and that was, what, 60 years ago?
Coup d'etat?  Seriously? This is a slightly glorified Whiskey Rebellion.

They must have you so wrapped around their finger if you think THIS is a serious coup attempt and Trump-Russia was just a legitimate investigation.

France has had worse. UK had a 70 year domestic terrorist campaign that eventually saw part of it granted legitimacy and diplomatic recognition.

Heck, Vietnam was way worse. This is a fart in the wind compared to then. People legit thought the country was on the verge of revolution.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 12:56:31 pm
Coup d'etat?  Seriously? This is a slightly glorified Whiskey Rebellion.
Coup d'etat
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you previously use such language to describe the Mueller investigation ?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 01:04:46 pm
Coup d'etat
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you previously use such language to describe the Mueller investigation ?  :laugh:
The Trump-Russia stuff was a soft coup and the fact you cant see that shows how brainwashed you are.

They took non-evidence and flimsy reports to justify an intense PR and investigative campaign against the President simply because they disagreed with his policies.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 01:12:37 pm
The Trump-Russia stuff was a soft coup and the fact you cant see that shows how brainwashed you are.

They took non-evidence and flimsy reports to justify an intense PR and investigative campaign against the President simply because they disagreed with his policies.
Quote
coup:
Noun: sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
Is English your first language?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 02:52:10 pm
It's called a 'soft coup.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coup#:~:text=A%20soft%20coup%2C%20sometimes%20referred,cases%20also%20of%20the%20current

Maybe if you are so uninformed as to be unfamiliar with the term or the various ways coups can take place, you should refrain from having strong opinions on politics.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 02:54:32 pm
It's called a 'soft coup.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coup#:~:text=A%20soft%20coup%2C%20sometimes%20referred,cases%20also%20of%20the%20current

Maybe if you are so uninformed as to be unfamiliar with the term or the various ways coups can take place, you should refrain from having strong opinions on politics.
A yes or no would suffice!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 02:55:52 pm
: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
Do you consider Antifa crap an insurrection?

This was Redtifa. They stormed a building, waved some flags, and then the police moved in and dealt with them. Now they'll go home.

Sit down Chicken Little.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 02:56:04 pm
A yes or no would suffice!
Yes, you are ignorant.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 02:57:17 pm
A bit hyperbolic, sure, but... so is your usage of "glorified".  :smiley:
But yeah, it *was* an attempt to overturn/hinder/negate electoral results, right? It falls vaguely in that direction. Even if it was cringey, disorganized, and relatively non-violent (thankfully).
Hopefully nothing more will come of it, but it *is* a noteworthy attempt at undermining American democracy, and has drawn the attention of world leaders.
Whataboutism fallacies aside, France stumbles, people shrug. America stumbles, the world gets nervous.
The world isn't going to care about this by the time Champions League quarterfinals roll around.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 07, 2021, 02:58:39 pm
Yes, you are ignorant.
Do you consider Antifa crap an insurrection?

This was Redtifa. They stormed a building, waved some flags, and then the police moved in and dealt with them. Now they'll go home.
 
4 deaths and a 6pm curfew! 
You illiterate fool. I pity your students.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on January 07, 2021, 03:15:36 pm
They stormed a building

they stormed the capitol building not "a building"

idk how much time you've spent in or around the capitol building, but it's not a small deal. they at least pretend to take themselves seriously. but i guess whatever "no nonsense" attitude capitol security pretended to have was just for interns and tourists and not for people trying to break in.

what if one of those pipe bombs they found nearby had made it's way into the building? you're the one who loves hypotheticals. capitol security was shown to be either a joke or complicit (porque no los dos?). i guess we're lucky more people didn't get hurt
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 04:04:24 pm
4 deaths and a 6pm curfew! 
You illiterate fool. I pity your students.
Yes, and? A serious coup it was not. Stop trying to turn this into something huge for political purposes.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 04:05:32 pm
they stormed the capitol building not "a building"

idk how much time you've spent in or around the capitol building, but it's not a small deal. they at least pretend to take themselves seriously. but i guess whatever "no nonsense" attitude capitol security pretended to have was just for interns and tourists and not for people trying to break in.

what if one of those pipe bombs they found nearby had made it's way into the building? you're the one who loves hypotheticals. capitol security was shown to be either a joke or complicit (porque no los dos?). i guess we're lucky more people didn't get hurt
You know the Capitol has been "stormed" before, yes? Like Kavanaugh and other times.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 07, 2021, 04:25:19 pm
You know the Capitol has been "stormed" before, yes? Like Kavanaugh and other times.

Have you really stuck all your eggs in the deplorable basket? I really thought you had a glimmer of intelligence left.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 07, 2021, 04:54:36 pm
Have you really stuck all your eggs in the deplorable basket? I really thought you had a glimmer of intelligence left.
Stop trying to turn this into something it isn't.

Tens of thousands were there. A few thousand rush the building, of those a few hundred did more than just mill about. Of those few hundred maybe like a dozen tried to commit actual violence rather than lame vandalism.

Mostly peaceful protest. You live by that standard, you die by that standard.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 07, 2021, 10:38:47 pm
Have you really stuck all your eggs in the deplorable basket? I really thought you had a glimmer of intelligence left.

What on earth gave you that idea?!?!?  Haven't been here in a while?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 07, 2021, 10:53:22 pm
You know the Capitol has been "stormed" before, yes? Like Kavanaugh and other times.

At least you had the decency to put "stormed" in "quotes".  Because they indicate that the Kavanaugh protestors simply sat down and refused to budge, did not have a single firearm, no Molotov cocktails or pipe bombs were found.  And no one was killed. 

So really, you're disingenuously, AS ALWAYS, comparing things that aren't really comparable.  AT ALL.  Right?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 08, 2021, 01:25:01 am
No need to make a new thread. Just put it in the Friday’s pointless ramblings thread. Or just leave it here. America hating Aussie Adel was trying to say the USA is a banana republic. (Which it’s not.) Instead of dignifying that with a response, we discussed bananas.
It's getting there, make no mistake.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 08, 2021, 01:26:14 am
By the Super Bowl, this will all be forgotten. If this happened in France, no one would bat an eye. You had tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands there. Several hundred went stupid, one person was shot. Then everyone went home.

Yawn.
Wrong, as usual.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 08, 2021, 01:30:14 am
Coup d'etat?  Seriously? This is a slightly glorified Whiskey Rebellion.

They must have you so wrapped around their finger if you think THIS is a serious coup attempt and Trump-Russia was just a legitimate investigation.

France has had worse. UK had a 70 year domestic terrorist campaign that eventually saw part of it granted legitimacy and diplomatic recognition.

Heck, Vietnam was way worse. This is a fart in the wind compared to then. People legit thought the country was on the verge of revolution.
Armed insurrection in support of overturning a lawful election. An attempted coup.

What the f&cK do you know about the Vietnam protests?  Chanting outside the White House is a far cry  from what happened yesterday.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 08, 2021, 01:34:39 am
The Trump-Russia stuff was a soft coup and the fact you cant see that shows how brainwashed you are.

They took non-evidence and flimsy reports to justify an intense PR and investigative campaign against the President simply because they disagreed with his policies.
No, there was and is serious concern about trump's connections to putin. Russia did interfere in the 2016 election. Trump did several times obstruct justice. 

Is all you've got the big lie method of propaganda? Is that you, Herr Goebbels?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 08, 2021, 01:35:55 am
Yes, and? A serious coup it was not. Stop trying to turn this into something huge for political purposes.

Those people were dead serious.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 05:20:35 am
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-stormed-capitol-b1784091.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-stormed-capitol-b1784091.html)

It shouldn't be very difficult to track down these dropkicks. A lot of them took selfies and posed for the cameras.
One wonders why the FBI is seeking help for their identification.

(https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox5dc.com/www.fox5dc.com/content/uploads/2021/01/932/524/0000000.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)


It's hard to believe there's been so few arrest so far.  This riot was quite a contrast from the arrests made at BLM protests.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/07/figures-show-stark-difference-between-arrests-at-dc-black-lives-matter-protest-and-arrests-at-capitol-hill/?sh=103403725706 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/07/figures-show-stark-difference-between-arrests-at-dc-black-lives-matter-protest-and-arrests-at-capitol-hill/?sh=103403725706)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 07:41:52 am
One wonders why the FBI is seeking help for their identification.

Because............ ... The FBI don't know these people personally? hahaha What?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 07:43:52 am
Because............... The FBI don't know these people personally? hahaha What?
What are you talking about, C02? His picture is right there! Arrest the man already  >:( /s
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 07:48:19 am
Because............... The FBI don't know these people personally? hahaha What?

well, had it been a BLM protest, they would identify the man from his personal effects ... once they got them from the morgue.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 07:51:44 am
Because............... The FBI don't know these people personally? hahaha What?

So you didn't read the link then. I guess I should've posted  more pictures for you.  ;D
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 08:11:20 am
So you didn't read the link then. I guess I should've posted  more pictures for you.  ;D

I'm confused. The one article is about one guy, Angeli, and the other about the BLM comparison.

If people get away from a crime, the police need help identifying who was there, whether it's photos or CCTV, composite sketches, what have you.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mister Tim on January 08, 2021, 09:03:05 am
One of the people who invaded the capitol is a guitarist from a well-known metal band. I've known for a while that he's a hardline libertarian type (he cheered for Ron Paul back when that was still a thing people did), but I didn't realize his dipshittery had sunk to such levels. He's in one of the photos the DC Police have posted online asking for help identifying people for unlawful entry, and I know for certain that at least two people have already contacted them (and the FBI) to clue them in on his identity.

I'm actually pretty bummed, because he's one of the biggest influences on my own playing style. A release from one of his side projects was even in my top ten list for 2020, which will now be retroactively embarrassing. Never meet your heroes, I guess.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 08, 2021, 09:10:47 am
So senseless, RIP.... https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR1L4gu8DDzB4XVU99zHgl5clxqfEVckL-w1e6DbLkZQhMRSMF_Q6fqDbX8

Quote
Capitol Police Officer Dies After Being Assaulted By Extremists In Siege
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 09:30:55 am
So senseless, RIP.... https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/07/954333542/four-dead-police-injured-dozens-arrested-after-siege-at-the-u-s-capitol?utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=facebook.com&fbclid=IwAR1L4gu8DDzB4XVU99zHgl5clxqfEVckL-w1e6DbLkZQhMRSMF_Q6fqDbX8


I'm sure a certain scumbag will be along soon to point out that there is nothing to see here. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 09:44:51 am
I'm confused. The one article is about one guy, Angeli, and the other about the BLM comparison.

If people get away from a crime, the police need help identifying who was there, whether it's photos or CCTV, composite sketches, what have you.
It took me five minute to identify that guy. I'd assume the FBI might have more sophisticated and well developed skills than myself in the age of social media.  ;D
 I mean, they didn't try very hard to conceal themselves did they but I guess you're often confused by a lot of things
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 09:55:01 am
It took me five minute to identify that guy.
How?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 10:03:12 am
How?

Ever heard of google? I mean Angeli doesn't dress like you're regular joe does he?  Correct me if I'm being a little presumptuous here. Do you have that kind of gear in your wardrobe?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 10:14:06 am

Ever heard of google? I mean Angeli doesn't dress like you're regular joe does he?  Correct me if I'm being a little presumptuous here. Do you have that kind of gear in your wardrobe?

Did you forward your findings to the FBI? Cuz if you didn't, what does it matter if you find out his name online? The guys a nut, let the police deal with it.

And no, I don't. haha
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: TexasChicken on January 08, 2021, 10:50:39 am
Not a coup, but certainly an insurrection.

 I don’t condone the violence that happened in Washington, but its time for some government reform.

Texaschicken.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 08, 2021, 10:51:10 am
Someone needs to interrogate Matt Groening,   (https://scontent-ssn1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/137029737_2820899558187369_8777989946988996326_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=9QhmMt_255kAX-aFtd7&_nc_ht=scontent-ssn1-1.xx&oh=064d8bd5d0ee8ca8be79741a86586914&oe=601E07E2)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 10:53:26 am
Not a coup, but certainly an insurrection.

 I don’t condone the violence that happened in Washington, but its time for some government reform.

Texaschicken.

Uh.  We just finished voting the bum out.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 10:59:03 am
Someone needs to interrogate Matt Groening,   
Gee, it certainly couldn't be this nutjob copying the character from The Simpsons to a tee, could it?

EDIT: That's just Groundskeeper Willy with some drawings over him.

Groening ain't a clairvoyant.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 12:07:28 pm
Uh.  We just finished voting the bum out.
Well, there you go. Problem solved.

Since we don't have Trump to worry about, we're allowed to press Biden on issues now, right?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 12:54:00 pm
Well, there you go. Problem solved.
That problem solved.

Quote

Since we don't have Trump to worry about, we're allowed to press Biden on issues now, right?
Of course.  A few things will be easy, like stimulus checks, competent govt handling of the pandemic, some of the roll-back of Trump's disastrous federal land-raping, a sane head of education dept, AG that has a spine, etc.

Some things are perennially difficult because of Republican intransigence.

Speaking of which, this election cycle also solved the McConnell problem, at least for two years.   
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 08, 2021, 01:00:34 pm
Gee, it certainly couldn't be this nutjob copying the character from The Simpsons to a tee, could it?

EDIT: That's just Groundskeeper Willy with some drawings over him.

Groening ain't a clairvoyant.

Wow the fact you answered that seriously and had to add an edit about groundskeeper willie makes it even better!

Thanks for the lol’s :D !!!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 08, 2021, 01:02:59 pm
Thanks for the lol’s :D !!!

You're welcome. :)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 08, 2021, 01:03:27 pm
I'm sure a certain scumbag will be along soon to point out that there is nothing to see here. 

It was a false report they ran a correction
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 01:11:26 pm
That problem solved.
Of course.  A few things will be easy, like stimulus checks, competent govt handling of the pandemic, some of the roll-back of Trump's disastrous federal land-raping, a sane head of education dept, AG that has a spine, etc.

Some things are perennially difficult because of Republican intransigence.

Speaking of which, this election cycle also solved the McConnell problem, at least for two years.
Personally my top 3 asks are Medicare for All (or something similar, he can call it Bidencare or whatever if he wants), reduced presence in the Middle East, and abolish ICE (replace it with something else if they must, but ICE is corrupt to the point you need to at least rebuild from the ground up).

I doubt we'll see much improvement on the first two if only because of the massive pharma lobby and the military-industrial complex. I do think there will be a return to Obama-era policies as regards migration, but I'd like to push for something a bit nicer than that. Interestingly enough I think that M4A-esque plans and reduced military presence actually flies with a significant enough amount of Republicans since a few of them will continue to model Trump and play at populism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 01:12:31 pm
(https://db0ip7zd23b50.cloudfront.net/dims4/default/1140913/2147483647/legacy_thumbnail/960x369%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbloomberg-bna-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F50%2F1c%2Fd26769ac43d38b34a551949e45f0%2F367097061.jpg)

This one just lost his job . His employer did seem ike a natural fit though!  ;D

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/goosehead-insurance-fires-lawyer-for-role-in-capitol-breach (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/goosehead-insurance-fires-lawyer-for-role-in-capitol-breach)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 01:51:36 pm
Personally my top 3 asks are Medicare for All (or something similar, he can call it Bidencare or whatever if he wants), reduced presence in the Middle East, and abolish ICE (replace it with something else if they must, but ICE is corrupt to the point you need to at least rebuild from the ground up).

I doubt we'll see much improvement on the first two if only because of the massive pharma lobby and the military-industrial complex. I do think there will be a return to Obama-era policies as regards migration, but I'd like to push for something a bit nicer than that. Interestingly enough I think that M4A-esque plans and reduced military presence actually flies with a significant enough amount of Republicans since a few of them will continue to model Trump and play at populism.

Ooh, an actual policy discussion on waygook.  I'm out of practice, hang on a sec. ... Okay, so M4A as you say has a large hurdle of Pharma, but also it will be labeled socialism and the Americans who depend the most on socialism really really hate things called socialism.  I think highway funding should be withheld from states that don't adopt state-wide rigorous standards for police officers, including ongoing training.  And everyone in jail over a dime bag should be released and their records expunged.

But policies come and go.  In my mind, the biggest matter of a presidency is actually SCOTUS.  I'm hoping Breyer will resign on Jan 21 or 22 and we'll some young blood in there, while Senate GOP is still on their back heels.  Next out is presumably Thomas (and I mean to retire, of course) but it's a long time until the next chance, unless something unfortunate happens.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:27:26 pm
Personally my top 3 asks are Medicare for All (or something similar, he can call it Bidencare or whatever if he wants), reduced presence in the Middle East, and abolish ICE (replace it with something else if they must, but ICE is corrupt to the point you need to at least rebuild from the ground up).

I doubt we'll see much improvement on the first two if only because of the massive pharma lobby and the military-industrial complex. I do think there will be a return to Obama-era policies as regards migration, but I'd like to push for something a bit nicer than that. Interestingly enough I think that M4A-esque plans and reduced military presence actually flies with a significant enough amount of Republicans since a few of them will continue to model Trump and play at populism.

Wouldn't hold out much hope for the reduced Middle East presence. We'll probably get a watered-down Obamacare update. Biden MIGHT try some big show about tearing down the wall and defunding ICE, but I'm not sure. That seems really risky, politically. Most likely it would be some moderate action.

I wonder if 6 months to a couple of years from now, people will ever stop and notice how worked up they got over Trump and if they were ever in a bit of a panic.

Also, will there be different factions in the Biden White House? You gotta think that some of Harris' people are looking at Biden as almost a lame duck.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 02:32:18 pm
Ooh, an actual policy discussion on waygook.  I'm out of practice, hang on a sec. ... Okay, so M4A as you say has a large hurdle of Pharma, but also it will be labeled socialism and the Americans who depend the most on socialism really really hate things called socialism.
M4A definitely has some tricky waters to navigate. Honestly, I think it's sort of screwed, the people who really really hate things called socialism were willing to swallow the idea of "TrumpCare" or whatever but now that Trump's successfully set up Biden as some sort of election thief that ship has sailed. Plus even if Biden were theoretically interested in ramming a plan through still have to contend with a few of his fellow Democrats and we'd probably end up with another Obamacare.


I think highway funding should be withheld from states that don't adopt state-wide rigorous standards for police officers, including ongoing training.  And everyone in jail over a dime bag should be released and their records expunged.
I would love a national overhaul of the police system but that'd be pretty hard to pull off, all the red states will be crying about their states rights all the way to court. I guess withholding highway funding could maybe work, but in terms of actually achieving meaningful police reform it's probably best pursued at the local level. I mean sure Minneapolis didn't completely defund but at least they managed to shift 8 mil off the police force, which is something.


But policies come and go.  In my mind, the biggest matter of a presidency is actually SCOTUS.  I'm hoping Breyer will resign on Jan 21 or 22 and we'll some young blood in there, while Senate GOP is still on their back heels.  Next out is presumably Thomas (and I mean to retire, of course) but it's a long time until the next chance, unless something unfortunate happens.
It would be nice if Breyer would retire. I feel like after what happened with Ginsburg he'll probably feel pressured enough to do so. Thomas probably isn't going to retire if he can help it.

Personally I don't like the SCOTUS much in the first place, but it's here to stay. The best we can hope for is Biden actually goes ahead and expands it but I doubt that's happening.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:33:14 pm
well, had it been a BLM protest, they would identify the man from his personal effects ... once they got them from the morgue.
If there's one thing that characterized the BLM protests of the past 6 months, its how the cops mowed everyone down and they were quickly snuffed out.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:35:48 pm
No, there was and is serious concern about trump's connections to putin.
No, there wasn't. Anyone in the know was aware it was just a domestic political stunt to smear Trump.

If there were real concerns we would have seen a MUCH different response.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 02:37:53 pm
No, there wasn't. Anyone in the know was aware it was just a domestic political stunt to smear Trump.

If there were real concerns we would have seen a MUCH different response.
Do you consider Antifa an insurrection? Was that Redifa ?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:37:57 pm
Missing from this perspective is the fact that yesterday's 'rebellion' was performed in pursuit of a hopeless delusion, in service of anti-democratic goals, initiated and primed by the President.
Missing from the perspective is that we'll move on the second some celebrity does something dumb or James Harden gets punched by Russell Westbrook.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:38:28 pm
Do you consider Antifa an insurrection? Was that Redifa ?
Antifa and the Proud Boys are glorified LARPers, more akin to soccer ultras.

I mean when your gang looks more like the Baseball Furies or the Mimes or some other gang from 'The Warriors' or whatever, you're not a serious threat.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 02:39:27 pm
M4A definitely has some tricky waters to navigate. Honestly, I think it's sort of screwed, the people who really really hate things called socialism were willing to swallow the idea of "TrumpCare" or whatever but now that Trump's successfully set up Biden as some sort of election thief that ship has sailed. Plus even if Biden were theoretically interested in ramming a plan through still have to contend with a few of his fellow Democrats and we'd probably end up with another Obamacare.

I would love a national overhaul of the police system but that'd be pretty hard to pull off, all the red states will be crying about their states rights all the way to court. I guess withholding highway funding could maybe work, but in terms of actually achieving meaningful police reform it's probably best pursued at the local level. I mean sure Minneapolis didn't completely defund but at least they managed to shift 8 mil off the police force, which is something.
Highway funding has worked to push states several times, for example raising the drinking age.  Training could be done by whatever entity but meet certain benchmarks from the state level, like say, teachers and nurses.
Quote

It would be nice if Breyer would retire. I feel like after what happened with Ginsburg he'll probably feel pressured enough to do so. Thomas probably isn't going to retire if he can help it.

Personally I don't like the SCOTUS much in the first place, but it's here to stay. The best we can hope for is Biden actually goes ahead and expands it but I doubt that's happening.

It won't.  Nine has been a good number that spread vacancies pretty well across presidential terms, until the turtle cum-sock played that bullshit with Merrick Garland.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 02:42:52 pm
If there's one thing that characterized the BLM protests of the past 6 months, its how the cops mowed everyone down and they were quickly snuffed out.
Judging from your sniveling excuses and apologia for an attempted armed insurrection against the US government, you have lost whatever little sense you used to have.

The device has yet to be created with the sensitivity to determine the minuteness of a **** I could give about anything you have to say about anything. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:43:36 pm
Highway funding has worked to push states several times, for example raising the drinking age.  Training could be done by whatever entity but meet certain benchmarks from the state level, like say, teachers and nurses.It won't.  Nine has been a good number that spread vacancies pretty well across presidential terms, until the turtle cum-sock played that bullshit with Merrick Garland.
It was gamey, but then it was Reid who decided to do away with the filibuster. The chickens came home to roost on that one.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 02:44:26 pm
Wouldn't hold out much hope for the reduced Middle East presence. We'll probably get a watered-down Obamacare update.
"watered-down Obamacare update" is a pretty good way to describe what'll probably happen.


Biden MIGHT try some big show about tearing down the wall and defunding ICE, but I'm not sure. That seems really risky, politically. Most likely it would be some moderate action.
Trump only got like 450 miles of it up, right? And it isn't particularly impressive either. Biden will probably halt construction like he promised, but I doubt he'll be tearing stuff down.

At the very least I'd hope that Biden could keep ICE confined to the border and quit letting them run around randomly hunting people down.


Also, will there be different factions in the Biden White House? You gotta think that some of Harris' people are looking at Biden as almost a lame duck.
Honestly, I doubt it. Now that the corporate Dems have their epic centrist victory they're going to try and hold strong so they can shove as many leftists out of the party as possible (while probably keeping AOC around for optics). The Democratic primaries have already shown that the party is remarkably united when it feels the need to be.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:47:45 pm
Judging from your sniveling excuses and apologia for an attempted armed insurrection against the US government, you have lost whatever little sense you used to have.
ARMED INSURRECTION ARMED INSURRECTION ARMED INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you say it loud enough and with enough conviction, it will make it true.

Dude, people were more interested in selfies and social media follows than actual overthrow.

Calling this an "Armed insurrection" is an insult to REAL armed insurrections in 3rd world countries where thousands of people get killed and the government gets slaughtered and civil war breaks out. Stop trying to add unnecessary drama in your life just to make a point or make things interesting.

This is like when 1st worlders go without food for 18 hours and claim they're "starving."  "OMG MY HAGWON BOSS KEPT US WORKING FOR 8 HOURS STRAIGHT AND I COULDN'T GET LUNCH. HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES!!!!!!!!!!!"

Get a grip. Stop dialing everything up to 11.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:50:43 pm
Honestly, I doubt it. Now that the corporate Dems have their epic centrist victory they're going to try and hold strong so they can shove as many leftists out of the party as possible (while probably keeping AOC around for optics). The Democratic primaries have already shown that the party is remarkably united when it feels the need to be.
Oh I don't think it will be ideologically driven, just more personal camps. Biden's people vs. Harris. Biden people have to know the clock is ticking and the Harris loyalists from the getgo will definitely be trying to knock them off.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 02:53:51 pm
Quick question- Which is worse? Rioting and smashing the Capitol and attacking politicians or rioting and smashing a local small business and attacking your neighbors?

If you think the former is worse than the latter, that shows deep down whether or not you truly are an authoritarian.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 02:54:09 pm
Highway funding has worked to push states several times, for example raising the drinking age.  Training could be done by whatever entity but meet certain benchmarks from the state level, like say, teachers and nurses.
Improved training would help but honestly they need to change the entire ethos. Put a social worker in the police chief position, or at the very least quit hiring retired army sergeants. Also, teach them to value human life more than private property. Don't get me wrong, people don't deserve to have their shit stolen, but personally the only reason I'd shoot a home invader or whatever is if it were clearly necessary for self-defense.


It won't.  Nine has been a good number that spread vacancies pretty well across presidential terms, until the turtle cum-sock played that bullshit with Merrick Garland.
Unfortunately the aforementioned turtle cum-sock has more or less changed the game, I have no doubt that him and whatever Republicans follow him will continue to play that game at any given opportunity.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 08, 2021, 03:00:43 pm
Quick question- Which is worse? Rioting and smashing the Capitol and attacking politicians or rioting and smashing a local small business and attacking your neighbors?

If you think the former is worse than the latter, that shows deep down whether or not you truly are an authoritarian.

Sounds like a question posed to justify an insurrection that someone was trying downplay as  quickly forgotten.  Funny how quickly Trump threw them under the bus.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 08, 2021, 03:03:34 pm
Quick question- Which is worse? Rioting and smashing the Capitol and attacking politicians or rioting and smashing a local small business and attacking your neighbors?

If you think the former is worse than the latter, that shows deep down whether or not you truly are an authoritarian.
Which one is being incited by the President?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mister Tim on January 08, 2021, 03:07:46 pm
Quick question- Which is worse? Rioting and smashing the Capitol and attacking politicians or rioting and smashing a local small business and attacking your neighbors?

If you think the former is worse than the latter, that shows deep down whether or not you truly are an authoritarian.

Hmmm...

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErE18TmVoAILrHn.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 08, 2021, 03:08:20 pm
Oh I don't think it will be ideologically driven, just more personal camps. Biden's people vs. Harris. Biden people have to know the clock is ticking and the Harris loyalists from the getgo will definitely be trying to knock them off.
I could be wrong, but I don't really see Harris as someone who has "loyalists" lol. I mean she basically sold out all her positions to get the job in the first place.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 08, 2021, 05:34:51 pm
lol conservatives still defending domestic terrorism. No, you're not going to get to excuse this away and pretend it was no big deal just because it was a bunch of dumb white people. Pipe bombs were set, guns were drawn, people died, including a cop. This is what happens when your fascist thuggery is unchallenged.

At least hangook1234 realizes this looks bad and is pretending that it was all antifa's doing, though him stating this does makes him look insane.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 08, 2021, 06:00:15 pm
Do you think that the factors which led to people adopting the beliefs and behaviors on display yesterday are going away, then?
Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to predict. I mean, no one really thought Trump would become President. No one saw Bernie Sanders coming (well, most didn't).

I mean, there's already noises within the right-o-sphere of people being blackpilled and aif.

Movements crop up and fade away.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 04:17:28 am
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-stormed-capitol-b1784091.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/jake-angeli-qanon-shaman-stormed-capitol-b1784091.html)

It shouldn't be very difficult to track down these dropkicks. A lot of them took selfies and posed for the cameras.
One wonders why the FBI is seeking help for their identification.

(https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox5dc.com/www.fox5dc.com/content/uploads/2021/01/932/524/0000000.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)


It's hard to believe there's been so few arrest so far.  This riot was quite a contrast from the arrests made at BLM protests.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/07/figures-show-stark-difference-between-arrests-at-dc-black-lives-matter-protest-and-arrests-at-capitol-hill/?sh=103403725706 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/01/07/figures-show-stark-difference-between-arrests-at-dc-black-lives-matter-protest-and-arrests-at-capitol-hill/?sh=103403725706)
They found him. He's from South Florida, currently in hiding.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 04:24:15 am
Personally my top 3 asks are Medicare for All (or something similar, he can call it Bidencare or whatever if he wants), reduced presence in the Middle East, and abolish ICE (replace it with something else if they must, but ICE is corrupt to the point you need to at least rebuild from the ground up).

I doubt we'll see much improvement on the first two if only because of the massive pharma lobby and the military-industrial complex. I do think there will be a return to Obama-era policies as regards migration, but I'd like to push for something a bit nicer than that. Interestingly enough I think that M4A-esque plans and reduced military presence actually flies with a significant enough amount of Republicans since a few of them will continue to model Trump and play at populism.
I think we'll see some improvement on healthcare as problems with the ACA are addressed and it will be made available to more and more people.  In the ME, they'll try to renew the treaty with Iran, which trump has made extremely tough and probably begin fully extricating the US from Iraq, which is falling apart.  But the drones will still be up. Reforming ICE is certainly needed, but would in a list or priorities probably be pretty far down the list.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 04:25:30 am
Ooh, an actual policy discussion on waygook.  I'm out of practice, hang on a sec. ... Okay, so M4A as you say has a large hurdle of Pharma, but also it will be labeled socialism and the Americans who depend the most on socialism really really hate things called socialism.  I think highway funding should be withheld from states that don't adopt state-wide rigorous standards for police officers, including ongoing training.  And everyone in jail over a dime bag should be released and their records expunged.

But policies come and go.  In my mind, the biggest matter of a presidency is actually SCOTUS.  I'm hoping Breyer will resign on Jan 21 or 22 and we'll some young blood in there, while Senate GOP is still on their back heels.  Next out is presumably Thomas (and I mean to retire, of course) but it's a long time until the next chance, unless something unfortunate happens.
Good call on Breyer. He's being pushed to resign by progressives for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 04:27:43 am
ARMED INSURRECTION ARMED INSURRECTION ARMED INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you say it loud enough and with enough conviction, it will make it true.

Dude, people were more interested in selfies and social media follows than actual overthrow.

Calling this an "Armed insurrection" is an insult to REAL armed insurrections in 3rd world countries where thousands of people get killed and the government gets slaughtered and civil war breaks out. Stop trying to add unnecessary drama in your life just to make a point or make things interesting.

This is like when 1st worlders go without food for 18 hours and claim they're "starving."  "OMG MY HAGWON BOSS KEPT US WORKING FOR 8 HOURS STRAIGHT AND I COULDN'T GET LUNCH. HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES!!!!!!!!!!!"

Get a grip. Stop dialing everything up to 11.
The guy who wasn't there tries to tell us all about it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 04:30:25 am
Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to predict. I mean, no one really thought Trump would become President. No one saw Bernie Sanders coming (well, most didn't).

I mean, there's already noises within the right-o-sphere of people being blackpilled and aif.

Movements crop up and fade away.
You seem to not have noticed that this is basically the tea party in a more radical form.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 09, 2021, 05:36:54 am
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government."
- Thomas Jefferson

WTF does any of this have to do with a bunch of salty cosplaying losers breaking and entering the Capitol to try and end democracy just because their cult leader lost an election? TRUMP LOST GET OVER IT.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 06:21:18 am
They found him. He's from South Florida, currently in hiding.

Someone needs to take this opportunity to pitch a new TV show 'America's Dumbest Seditionists' !
There would be a sh*t load of contestants.  This one Tim Gionet, aka Baked Alaska was another one streaming it live.

(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/baked-alaska-01.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1)
‘Baked Alaska’ stormed Capitol while COVID-19-positive
https://nypost.com/2021/01/07/streamer-baked-alaska-stormed-capitol-with-covid-19/

Meet Jenny Cudd from Midland Texas
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGsAOynAUf4

 https://twitter.com/Cleavon_MD/status/1347334743323394048
"WE did break down
@SpeakerPelosi's office door and somebody stole her gavel and I took a picture sitting in the chair flipping off the camera and that was on Fox News" 
@FBI

I guess they feel a sense of white privilege and an entitlement to break the law. There doesn't appear to be too much concern for the consequences of their actions does there?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 07:56:48 am
Apparently one of the terrorist seditionists accidentally tased himself in the balls, giving him a fatal heart attack.

Darwin is having a field day! Or is it field week...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 08:15:48 am
Apparently one of the terrorist seditionists accidentally tased himself in the balls, giving him a fatal heart attack.

Darwin is having a field day! Or is it field week...

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3b/9a/a6/3b9aa684b0141e01b054f102caf88d6c.gif)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 09, 2021, 08:16:36 am
Twitter suspending Dear Leader's account must be the worst day for him in his Presidency. What else can he now from his toilet seat at 4am in the morning?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 08:24:23 am
Quote
   

I guess they feel a sense of white privilege and an entitlement to break the law. There doesn't appear to be too much concern for the consequences of there actions does there?   

I see, so white privilege and entitlement directly lead to crime in the US. Is that just for domestic terrorism or crime in general?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 08:27:09 am
Twitter suspending Dear Leader's account must be the worst day for him in his Presidency. What else can he now from his toilet seat at 4am in the morning?

Pretty bad day for freedom of speech too. No matter what you think about Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 08:28:59 am
Pretty bad day for freedom of speech too. No matter what you think about Trump.

I hear ya dude! It's pretty tough when your freedom to incite riots and sedition is taken away from you.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 08:47:17 am
WTF does any of this have to do with a bunch of salty cosplaying losers breaking and entering the Capitol to try and end democracy just because their cult leader lost an election? TRUMP LOST GET OVER IT.
I'll give MayorHaggar partial credit here- cosplaying losers pretty much sums them up. Certainly better than some of the over the top stuff.

It seems most of them weren't really trying to topple power, i.e. Yak guy. But there certainly was a cluster of crazies who were.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 08:50:59 am
I see, so white privilege and entitlement directly lead to crime in the US. Is that just for domestic terrorism or crime in general?

Ok so you're acknowledging these are 'acts of domestic terrorism'. How else would you explain the lack of concern or fear of any repercussions in these cases rather making any whopping generalisations?  Why wouldn't they feel concerned about filming themselves live breaking into offices in the Capitol building, vandalising, assaulting police officers and steeling property?  It's beyond stupidity even for Trump supporters.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 08:57:46 am
"Freedom of speech for me...none for thee!" - Conservatism 101

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 09:04:32 am
Perhaps this would help explain it.
(https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/police_officer_holds_hand_of_rioter_1.jpg)

Ever see this kind of treatment from police at BLM protest?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 09:10:15 am
"Freedom of speech for me...none for thee!" - Conservatism 101


I support the freedom of speech policies that ban Trump but allow this-  https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347247602094534658?s=19
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-uighurs-birth-rate-draws-instant/story?id=75118569


(https://tnimage.s3.hicloud.net.tw/photos/2021/01/08/1610100105-5ff82d891d518.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 09:11:29 am
I'll give MayorHaggar partial credit here- cosplaying losers pretty much sums them up. Certainly better than some of the over the top stuff.

It seems most of them weren't really trying to topple power, i.e. Yak guy. But there certainly was a cluster of crazies who were.

Yeah, I guess it was just a coincidence that the electoral college vote was being counted and certified at the time Trump dupes breached the Capitol building.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 09:19:12 am
No one thought our country or anyone was in serious danger. Why? All the tweets were about blaming Trump, not "OMG whats gonna happen? I don't know what to do" 9/11 style panic.

Go ahead and Reichstag fire this thing if you must. Trump and his supporters walked into it. Fair game.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 09:21:29 am
I support the freedom of speech policies that ban Trump but allow this-  https://twitter.com/ChineseEmbinUS/status/1347247602094534658?s=19
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/chinese-embassy-tweet-uighurs-birth-rate-draws-instant/story?id=75118569


(https://tnimage.s3.hicloud.net.tw/photos/2021/01/08/1610100105-5ff82d891d518.jpg)

What does first amendment have to do with a private company?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 09:34:48 am
Twitter suspending Dear Leader's account must be the worst day for him in his Presidency. What else can he now from his toilet seat at 4am in the morning?

I only just heard it was upgraded to a permanent suspension.    :laugh:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-permanently-bans-president-donald-trump-n1253588 (https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-permanently-bans-president-donald-trump-n1253588)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 09:54:12 am
Perhaps this would help explain it.
(https://www.unilad.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/police_officer_holds_hand_of_rioter_1.jpg)

Ever see this kind of treatment from police at BLM protest?

You're not going to show a picture of that unarmed woman they shot?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 10:00:35 am
What does first amendment have to do with a private company?
Platform vs. Publisher.

Also, if you can't see how suspending Trump but letting this stay up only exacerbates things, I don't know what to say.

Twitter is allowing a tweet endorsing genocide to stay up.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 10:05:48 am
You're not going to show a picture of that unarmed woman they shot?

I guess that's what happens when you break into the Capitol building with a bunch of rioters  and ignore the directions of armed police officers.
Are you suggesting she was peacefully protesting and an innocent victim? Was she behaving in a manner that showed respect for the law?
Should they have been offered a cup of tea and gently escorted out the building being that they were white folk and all? :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:09:36 am
I guess that's what happens when you break into the Capitol building with bunch of rioters  and ignore the directions of armed police officers.
Are you suggesting she was peacefully protesting and an innocent victim? Was she behaving in a manner that showed respect for the law?
Should they have been offered a cup of tea and gently escorted out the building being that they were white folk and all? :laugh:

As with all these kinds of incidents, I'll reserve judgement until all the facts come out.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 10:14:22 am
Platform vs. Publisher.

Also, if you can't see how suspending Trump but letting this stay up only exacerbates things, I don't know what to say.

Twitter is allowing a tweet endorsing genocide to stay up.

Exacerbate things where? How? Is twitter a thing in China?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 10:19:47 am
As with all these kinds of incidents, I'll reserve judgement until all the facts come out.

Check out their vids!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWMpTHLJXbw
Do they look like peaceful protestors to you? That's her top right of screen trying to climb through a broken window.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:27:50 am
Check out their vids!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWMpTHLJXbw
Do they look like peaceful protestors to you? That's her top right of screen trying to climb through a broken window.


Fine but be consistent though. Next time an unarmed black person gets shot by the police for ignoring instructions/breaking the law/posing a physical threat , come down in the police's side.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 10:32:36 am
Fine but be consistent though. Next time an unarmed black person gets shot by the police for ignoring instructions/breaking the law/posing a physical threat , come down in the police's side.

Ok dude. Next time I hear about a group of African Americans shot as they video themselves breaking into and rioting in the Capitol building while ignoring the direction of armed people officers I'll be sure to post my support for the rule of law right here!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:38:04 am
Just keep an open mind, wait till you get all the facts, judge each case on accounts from both sides, not single video clips, and try not to be colour-prejudiced.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 10:41:31 am
Just keep an open mind, wait till you get all the facts, judge each case on individual details, not single video clips and try not to be colour-prejudiced.

Ironic, given how vanilla ISIS MAGA moron explicitly tweeted that black lives don't matter.

But let's wait for the facts...and ignore video evidence of her being a literal terrorist trying to attack the VP of the United States and other elected officials.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 10:48:16 am
Just keep an open mind, wait till you get all the details and try not to be colour-prejudiced.

You're right dude! I'm sure it will eventually be revealed that this was all a conspiracy orchestrated by Antifa agitators and that poor woman was just an innocent victim caught in the crossfire.  I mean that would explain the cameras and posts on social media by Trump supporters wouldn't it?  :laugh:
What did Trump say happens when the looting starts?

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 09, 2021, 10:55:09 am
Twitter is allowing a tweet endorsing genocide to stay up.

The China one? That says women should NOT just be baby making machines? The article linked says religious extremism made the birth rate higher through young marriages, bigamy, and unplanned pregnancies. Saying those words is “genocide”? China has a rule saying marriages are one man and one woman. (So does the United States.) Islam says one man and four women. Sometimes a child has to marry a much older man to be his second, third, or fourth wife. Sad situation to see children - minors - put into these arranged marriages. Better to let them grow up and make the choice of who to be with on their own.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:59:33 am
The China one? That says women should NOT just be baby making machines? The article linked says religious extremism made the birth rate higher through young marriages, bigamy, and unplanned pregnancies. Saying those words is “genocide”? China has a rule saying marriages are one man and one woman. (So does the United States.) Islam says one man and four women. Sometimes a child has to marry a much older man to be his second, third, or fourth wife. Sad situation to see children - minors - put into these arranged marriages. Better to let them grow up and make the choice of who to be with on their own.

The meaning of 'genocide' has morphed in the last few years. Nowadays it can be applied to any person in power when some laws were enacted which some people claim led to the deaths of some people.  E.g. 'Boris Johnson's lack of deliberation over lockdown led to a genocide in the UK. '
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 09, 2021, 11:11:23 am
You're right dude! I'm sure it will eventually be revealed that this was all a conspiracy orchestrated by Antifa agitators and that poor woman was just an innocent victim caught in the crossfire.  I mean that would explain the cameras and posts on social media by Trump supporters wouldn't it?  :laugh:
What did Trump say happens when the looting starts?


Useful advice when applied to all incidents, No matter how cut and dry they might seem at first. Especially the way the media manipulates images/video etc nowadays. I'm sure you're intelligent enough not to be genuinely arguing against it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 11:18:11 am
In the spirit of "waiting for all the facts"...do we have her criminal history and toxicology report yet?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 11:20:49 am
Useful advice when applied to all incidents, No matter how cut and dry they might seem at first. Especially the way the media manipulates images/video etc nowadays. I'm sure you're intelligent enough not to be genuinely arguing against it.

Quite right dude. I'm sure the evidence will eventually prove she was a martyr to the cause of democracy!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 11:24:02 am
Exacerbate things where? How? Is twitter a thing in China?
If you ban Trump but allow a Chinese govt tweet effectively endorsing genocide, the message that sends to Trump supporters and conservatives and even moderates and liberals is that their worst fears about our govt, institutions, and tech are correct.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Aristocrat on January 09, 2021, 11:27:19 am
The China one? That says women should NOT just be baby making machines? The article linked says religious extremism made the birth rate higher through young marriages, bigamy, and unplanned pregnancies. Saying those words is “genocide”? China has a rule saying marriages are one man and one woman. (So does the United States.) Islam says one man and four women. Sometimes a child has to marry a much older man to be his second, third, or fourth wife. Sad situation to see children - minors - put into these arranged marriages. Better to let them grow up and make the choice of who to be with on their own.

Islam is incredibly detailed and specific when it comes to 2 issues in particular, marriage and inheritance.

1 - Islam allows for up to 4 wives, it doesn't instruct a man to take 4 wives.
2 - Specific conditions need to be met if a man is to take more wives:

a.) The first wife must give her permission
b.) The man must be of means to provide for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th wife in the same way he provides for himself and the 1st, in affection and finance (this typically means buying a separate house for each wife). Essentially, if he drives a Ferrari, all his wives should be driving cars of equal expense.
In my 30 odd years of living in a Muslim community back home I've only heard of one man who decided to do this and had the financial means.

3.) A woman cannot enter a marriage contract until she gives her full consent, without influence.
4.) The bride decides on the dowry, it can be any amount, and that dowry goes to her, NOT her family.

Point 4 is important as this is one of the reasons you see forced child marriages in certain rural areas in the Middle-East and Pakistan (I don't think it's really a thing anymore these days). Essentially, they ignored points 3 and 4 to the dowry
being determined by the family of the bride and the dowry being paid to the family; this essentially creates a situation of slavery where families use their daughters as a tradeable commodity.

China? One man has the right to one wife and as many underage prostitutes as he wishes... prostitute/girlfriend/mistress gets pregnant and he can bugger off scot free.
Islam? If you wish to have a 2nd wife, marry her so she's legally entitled to compensation if you decide to bugger off when she gets pregnant or you get bored of her.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 11:33:20 am
If you ban Trump but allow a Chinese govt tweet effectively endorsing genocide, the message that sends to Trump supporters and conservatives and even moderates and liberals is that their worst fears about our govt, institutions, and tech are correct.

The Chinese government hates Muslims...trump and his supporters hate Muslims.

Try harder.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 11:36:34 am
The Chinese government hates Muslims...trump and his supporters hate Muslims.

Try harder.
Are you seriously comparing Trump's actions to the CCP and the Uyghurs?

Wow.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 09, 2021, 11:38:28 am
In the spirit of "waiting for all the facts"...do we have her criminal history and toxicology report yet?

It's just in: she was way over the limit having consumed nothing but Trump-aid for the last 4 years.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 09, 2021, 11:39:58 am
Are you seriously comparing Trump's actions to the CCP and the Uyghurs?

Wow.

They both like to lock innocent people in cages and have re-programmed large swathes of the population.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 09, 2021, 11:43:57 am
They both like to lock innocent people in cages and have re-programmed large swathes of the population.

If you think Trump is on the same level as the CCP, you have TDS.

Those ppl arent innocent if they cross a border illegally. Victims? Sure, in many cases, but there is a legal procedure.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 12:21:40 pm
Are you seriously comparing Trump's actions to the CCP and the Uyghurs?

Wow.

Both publicise their disdain for and mistreatment of Muslims.

Again, try harder.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 12:23:48 pm
The only thing that stopped Trump from basically doing the same as the CCP is the US constitution amd the way the US government is set up.

If you believe trump wouldn't have put Muslims in concentration camps if he had unlimited power...you're the one with TDS.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 12:25:54 pm
If you think Trump is on the same level as the CCP,.



Well Trump has a  well documented appetite for authoritarianism. I'd say if he could be on the same level he would. Thankfully thus far the constitutional guard rails have prevented him. His lies have done a fair amount of  damage the polity and he has exposed how fragile democracy can be.  In this sense his erratic behaviour has aided and abetted adversaries such as China and his buddy in Moscow.  It will be challenging for future presidents to espouse the stability of your system of government internationally.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 02:39:45 pm
It's just in: she was way over the limit having consumed nothing but Trump-aid for the last 4 years.



She was drunk off Trump fascist whiskey...please understand her unique and special situation.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 09, 2021, 03:35:07 pm
Are you seriously comparing Trump's actions to the CCP and the Uyghurs?

Wow.
My nephew is a running back on his high school football team.  Walter Payton was a running back for the Chicago Bears.

Both of them try to take the hand-off, break through the line and make positive yardage.  I can compare their actions, see?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 09, 2021, 04:00:25 pm
Just keep an open mind, wait till you get all the facts, judge each case on accounts from both sides, not single video clips, and try not to be colour-prejudiced.
You'd be wise to follow your own advice!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nM3An1E2rQ

Ok so this time we've avoided single video clips and have posted a compilation. On the left of the screen you can see BLM protests in the streets and on the right you can see Trump supporting breaking into and ransacking the Capitol building. Do you detect any noticeable differences in the tone  and attitude of the police officers? Did you see the cop at the end of the clip posing for a selfie with a Trump seditionist?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 09, 2021, 04:11:38 pm
If you ban Trump but allow a Chinese govt tweet effectively endorsing genocide, the message that sends to Trump supporters and conservatives and even moderates and liberals is that their worst fears about our govt, institutions, and tech are correct.

So you're saying websites should ban Trump and ban vile Chinese propaganda, gotta say I agree with you.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 09, 2021, 06:04:40 pm
As with all these kinds of incidents, I'll reserve judgement until all the facts come out.

Translation: I can no longer defend this bullshit
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 09, 2021, 06:25:41 pm
Feds say police found a pickup truck full of bombs and guns near Capitol insurrection as wide-ranging investigation unfurls

An Alabama man allegedly parked a pickup truck packed with 11 homemade bombs, an assault rifle and a handgun two blocks from the US Capitol building on Wednesday for hours before authorities ever noticed, according to federal prosecutors.

Another man allegedly showed up in the nation's capital with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and told acquaintances that he wanted to shoot or run over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, prosecutors said.


https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html

Boy...ANTIFA have really outdone themselves this time by masquerading as MAGA White Supremacist Terrorist Morons Trump Supporting Patriots...thereby enacting the George Soros led globalist plan to taint righteous freedom lovers in a bad light.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 09, 2021, 07:44:47 pm
No one thought our country or anyone was in serious danger. Why? All the tweets were about blaming Trump, not "OMG whats gonna happen? I don't know what to do" 9/11 style panic.

Go ahead and Reichstag fire this thing if you must. Trump and his supporters walked into it. Fair game.
All the tweets? You read every one?

"Holding five pairs of zip-tie handcuffs, a man in head-to-toe paramilitary gear coursed through the upper level of the U.S. Senate Chamber Wednesday, captured by a Getty photographer as a mob of President Donald Trump's supporters stormed the nation's Capitol.

The man was not with security, who'd recently evacuated U.S. Senators and Vice President Mike Pence from the floor below. Experts say he was among the rioters who disrupted U.S. Congress's certification of Trump's election loss with violence, resulting in five fatalities to date.

With his identity unconfirmed by officials as of Thursday evening, the motives of the man whose tactical gear is adorned with symbols indicating support for military and police — including a "thin blue line" in the shape of Tennessee — cannot be verified.

But for two counter-terrorism experts, the photographs bring to mind a recent plot hatched by Michigan extremist group the Wolverine Watchmen — to take politicians hostage after storming the state capitol and subduing law enforcement with Molotov cocktails, according to sworn Federal Bureau of Investigation statements in court documents.

'Incited violence': Several House Democrats call for Trump to be impeached over DC riots
Extremists recently plotted to storm a state Capitol, take hostages

The Michigan extremists eventually shifted their focus, from a siege on the state capitol to kidnapping Gov. Gretchen Whitmer from her home. The FBI announced the arrest of 13 people, on federal and state charges, in October.

Ari Weil, deputy research director for the University of Chicago's Militant Propaganda Analysis team, said the zip ties seen at the Capitol Wednesday are "reminiscent" of the Michigan plot — and suggest a desire to "conduct vigilante justice against members of Congress".

Malcolm Nance, a retired Navy counter-terrorism intelligence officer of 35 years and New York Times bestselling author of multiple books on national security, said he had the same thought as Weil when the zip-ties and tactical gear appeared on social media in the aftermath of the first breach of the building in more than 200 years.

"My greatest fear is that they use this mass of people to push through to breach the building — then what we call a Capture and Kill team," Nance said.

As the executive director of the Terror Asymmetrics Project, a small think tank studying the strategies and tactics of radical ideologies, Nance said he watched the mob escalate in real-time as his team tracked four different live streams from separate sides of the Capitol Wednesday."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 10, 2021, 01:15:55 am
Quote
“Big protest in D.C. on January 6th,”  “Be there, will be wild!” Donald J Trump Dec 19th 2020


Quote
"You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong. ......
After this, we're gonna walk down and I'll be there with you......... But I think right here, we're gonna walk down to the CAPITOL,"
" Donald J Trump Jan 2021

incitement: noun: the action of provoking unlawful behaviour or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ROBGkHGV9UWUgh3WSTv9bA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTQ3MC4yMDA1OTc1MjQ1NDEy/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/rw7zKqK41dsGA7Ccqh9vtw--~B/aD00Njg4O3c9NzAyOTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en-us/usa_today_news_641/e5794e38979790eb2571d4a08aa7c572)

Not all these guys would qualify for 'Americas Dumbest Seditionist' it would appear.
This one had the presence of mind to wear a mask and avoided the temptation to stream his terrorist activity live on social media! 
I think we can agree he looks kind of organised as if he had a pre-meditated plan.
One wonders what the Department of homeland Security has been up to lately.
Can anyone remember them?

(https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2021_01/3440187/210106-capitol-noose-ew-441p_e1870ce4f6cfae6eff418bff1906fdd9.fit-560w.jpg)
Quote
On the West Lawn of the Capitol Wednesday, a man in a pom-pom beanie clamored for blood. “Execute the traitors!” he shouted into a megaphone. “I wanna see executions!”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/trump-rioters-wanted-more-violence-worse/617614/)

After the event, one of his final tweets
Quote
“The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”  Jan 8, 2021, President Donald J. Trump

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 10, 2021, 07:45:46 am
It was probably an off  duty cop in the picture with the zip ties or active military.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 10, 2021, 08:12:10 am
It was probably an off  duty cop in the picture with the zip ties or active military.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1cBEcR.img?h=475&w=799&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=811&y=170)
One of them was
Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/larry-rendall-brock-jr-senate-rioter-in-tactical-gear-says-he-regrets-holding-zip-ties/ar-BB1cBEd0?li=BBnb7Kz (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/larry-rendall-brock-jr-senate-rioter-in-tactical-gear-says-he-regrets-holding-zip-ties/ar-BB1cBEd0?li=BBnb7Kz)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 10, 2021, 08:33:16 am
I'm actually pretty bummed, because he's one of the biggest influences on my own playing style. A release from one of his side projects was even in my top ten list for 2020, which will now be retroactively embarrassing. Never meet your heroes, I guess.

(https://metalshockfinland.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/jon-s1.jpg)

He’s on a wanted posted now. Police can’t find him; I guess he’s on the run.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 10, 2021, 11:33:38 am
My nephew is a running back on his high school football team.  Walter Payton was a running back for the Chicago Bears.

Both of them try to take the hand-off, break through the line and make positive yardage.  I can compare their actions, see?
You'd be a great HS football coach- "Why aren't you running like NFL Hall of Famer Walter Payton!?!?!!?!?!"

It's a shit comparison.  If you are comparing them, you're an idiot.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 10, 2021, 11:56:48 am
So you're saying websites should ban Trump and ban vile Chinese propaganda, gotta say I agree with you.


The "So you're saying" tell for complete bullsh*t.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you- Are you fine with this policy? Do you think twitter is right to ban Trump, but NOT ban vile Chinese propaganda?

Because that's what twitter's policy seems to be- Vile Chinese propaganda promoting genocide okay. Trump? BAN!!!!!!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 10, 2021, 01:23:31 pm
The "So you're saying" tell for complete bullsh*t.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you- Are you fine with this policy? Do you think twitter is right to ban Trump, but NOT ban vile Chinese propaganda?

Because that's what twitter's policy seems to be- Vile Chinese propaganda promoting genocide okay. Trump? BAN!!!!!!

Asked and answered. You can put your MAGA hat away now.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 10, 2021, 01:51:17 pm
Do you think twitter is right to ban Trump, but NOT ban vile Chinese propaganda?

Because that's what twitter's policy seems to be- Vile Chinese propaganda promoting genocide okay. Trump? BAN!!!!!!

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/twitter-takes-down-chinas-baby-making-machines-tweet-on-uighur-women/
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 10, 2021, 02:59:34 pm
The "So you're saying" tell for complete bullsh*t.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you- Are you fine with this policy? Do you think twitter is right to ban Trump, but NOT ban vile Chinese propaganda?

Because that's what twitter's policy seems to be- Vile Chinese propaganda promoting genocide okay. Trump? BAN!!!!!!

As I said, I think Twitter should ban Trump and vile Chinese propaganda. And it looks like they have. Of course you think Trump should be allowed to continue to incite insurrection, riots, treason and domestic terrorism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 10, 2021, 03:17:39 pm
By the Super Bowl, this will all be forgotten.

(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/ROBGkHGV9UWUgh3WSTv9bA--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTcwNTtoPTQ3MC4yMDA1OTc1MjQ1NDEy/https://s.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/rw7zKqK41dsGA7Ccqh9vtw--~B/aD00Njg4O3c9NzAyOTthcHBpZD15dGFjaHlvbg--/https://media.zenfs.com/en-us/usa_today_news_641/e5794e38979790eb2571d4a08aa7c572)

They stormed a building, waved some flags, and then the police moved in and dealt with them. Now they'll go home.

Sit down Chicken Little.


(https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/9467466_010821-ktrk-capitol-police-condolences-tn.jpg)


(https://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2021_01/3440187/210106-capitol-noose-ew-441p_e1870ce4f6cfae6eff418bff1906fdd9.fit-560w.jpg)

The world isn't going to care about this by the time Champions League quarterfinals roll around.


(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/capitol-cops-video-25.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 11, 2021, 01:57:05 am
"There are already social media calls for more attacks surrounding the Inauguration. The president is vowing, 'We will not be SILENCED!" And one of his supporters warned, "Many of us will return on January 19 carrying our weapons."

"Buckle up," Chertoff said. "I'm afraid we're going to see some very scary activity over the next weeks and months."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 11, 2021, 02:18:44 am
This is just one of the clowns leading the charge for dishonest don:

"A Trump supporter who became known as the ‘QAnon shaman’ after being pictured during riots at the US Capitol is reportedly a “failed actor” and conspiracy theorist described by his mother’s neighbours as “bizarre."

Jacob Angeli Chansley, 33, was charged with entering a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority, and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds after he participated in the mob that laid siege to the Capitol on Wednesday.

He was photographed wearing horns and carrying a spear while rioting in the Senate debating chamber and had painted his face with red, white and blue face paint.

According to the Daily Mail, Chansley has been living with his 56-year-old mother, Martha, since January 2019 after he was evicted from his apartment in Phoenix, Arizona, owing US$1,247 in rent arrears.

The newspaper reported that Chansley is unemployed, having failed to launch an acting career, and has been seen wandering through his mother’s neighbourhood in Glendale dressed in the same costume he wore to the Capitol riots.

He also has a car bumper sticker with the word ‘WQKE’ and the hashtags ‘#AllAboutTheChildren’ and ‘#TheGreatAwakening’, which are references to the QAnon conspiracy theory movement that believes in the existence of a vast underground pedophile ring."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 06:24:26 am
It's coming out more and more that this was an organized attack on the Capitol, and many of the rioters intended to assassinate Senators and Congressmen. They were going around chanting "hang Pence."

Quote
"They could have blown the building up," said Sen. Lindsey Graham. "They could have killed us all. They could have destroyed the government. We dodged a major bullet yesterday."

Keep in mind that Graham is a very conservative Republican who has been one of Trump's biggest supporters.

Meanwhile Waygook seems content with T Rex outright supporting this act of domestic terrorism, Martino lying and pretending that it was harmless and no big deal, and hangook lying and claiming it was Antifa rioting in the Capitol. On the website where we can't discuss religious issues.

Also keep in mind that these three have spent the last 2 months spreading false claims that the election was stolen.

The other "conservatives" here realize this looks bad and makes them look bad and aren't showing their faces or bothering to defend this.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 06:34:05 am
Will waygook continue to shelter the people who endorse this kind of domestic terrorism? Twitter, Apple, Google and Amazon aren't.

(https://i.imgur.com/vyhQwiZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/JLqUEDk.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/WVgsco2.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 08:55:00 am

For those of you who still need some guidance in how to recognise tone in writing. Mayorhaggar comes across as both scared and angry in recent posts. Plus butthurt and snowflakey of course  :smiley:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on January 11, 2021, 08:55:58 am
For those of you who still need some guidance in how to recognise tone in writing. Mayorhaggar comes across as both scared and angry in recent posts. Plus butthurt and snowflakey of course  :smiley:

Why is this never-changing comment always getting bumped.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 08:58:10 am
Someone keeps deleting it for some reason.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 09:11:51 am


Sorry dude, that might be me. I thought it was in poor taste given the subject matter of the dead police officer. I complained to a mod suggesting your freedom of speech be curtailed.

It has happened to me on a number of occasions when I engage with Martini. He seldom seems concerned about my freedom of speech. Given you seemed to be an admirer of his. I didn't think you'd mind!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 09:29:20 am
The guy's falsely accusing people of supporting domestic terrorism and asking for them to be banned on the basis, but you want me silenced for calling him a snowflake?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 09:42:04 am
The guy's falsely accusing people of supporting domestic terrorism and asking for them to be banned on the basis, but you want me silenced for calling him a snowflake?
Did you read lady's twitter post that he reposted? I thought your response was in poor taste but you'll note my use of 'curtailed' rather than 'silenced'. I don't think it would be fair for you to be 'silenced'.  ;D
Words matter dude!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 11, 2021, 09:52:43 am
House Homeland Security Committee Chair Calls for Capitol Rioters to Be Put on No-Fly List


The chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security has called for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the FBI to ban those involved in Wednesday's insurrection that breached the U.S. Capitol building from flying on airplanes.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) issued a statement Thursday urging the agencies to add the "violent perpetrators involved in the domestic terrorist attack on the U.S. Capitol" to the no-fly list.

Hundreds of supporters of President Donald Trump, angered over the president's election loss, stormed the building as Congress was meeting to officially certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory. Multiple people were killed or injured in the chaos, which also included pipe bombs being placed in other areas of Washington, D.C.


https://www.newsweek.com/house-homeland-security-committee-chair-calls-capitol-rioters-put-no-fly-list-1559889

I completely agree with this. Terrorists should NOT be allowed on planes!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 09:55:31 am
Did you read lady's twitter post that he reposted? I thought your response was in poor taste but you'll note my use of 'curtailed' rather than 'silenced'. I don't think it would be fair for you to be 'silenced'.  ;D
Words matter dude!

OK how about you go back through this and the other thread, find all the posts where you were rude to people and delete them, in respect for the five people who died in Washington.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 10:01:30 am
OK how about you go back through this and the other thread, find all the posts where you were rude to people and delete them, in respect for the five people who died in Washington.
Perhaps we could discuss them one at a time. Would you'd like to create a thread where you could post them one at a time and we could decide whether you're being a snowflake or if your complaints have merit. ;D.
I think it's best that we get back to the topic of this thread though for fear our freedom is put at risk.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: OnNut81 on January 11, 2021, 10:43:51 am
Will waygook continue to shelter the people who endorse this kind of domestic terrorism? Twitter, Apple, Google and Amazon aren't.


Holy sh*t!, talk about walking back any headway you made here with people taking you seriously after this bit of melodrama.  Yeah, the big five tech groups, Twitter, Apple, Google, Amazon and Waygook. Hilarious.  I bet you were pissed when Arsalan accepted Trump's invite to the big tech companies tete a tete when he was first elected.    There were plenty of good points raised here, but once you start going overboard like this it's just becomes juvenile and people stop listening.  It becomes less and less about the Capitol Hill riots and more about just furthering your agenda.  And you've beaten that agenda to death over the years here as it is.  Gogators and Adel are clearly as rabid as you, as well.  Can't take the three of you seriously.  Just stick with your valid points and drop the histrionics and personal attacks.  It conveys your message much more effectively.   

Waygook!  Will you stand with Apple and Twitter or will you side with tyranny and terrorism?  The world is watching. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 10:44:50 am
For those of you who still need some guidance in how to recognise tone in writing. Mayorhaggar comes across as both scared and angry in recent posts. Plus butthurt and snowflakey of course  :smiley:

Translation: "Even I can no longer defend these violent fascists but instead of repudiating them I'm just going to flame someone on the internet. "
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 10:51:13 am
Translation: "Even I can no longer defend these violent fascists but instead of repudiating them I'm just going to flame someone on the internet. "

Great point, if I ever had defended them. However, I actually referred to them as domestic terrorists right from the get go.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 10:53:26 am
Onnut did you miss the part where a violent mob of conspiracy theorists attacked the US Capitol with the intent of assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President?

waygook.org bans talk about religion because of its terms of use. All I'm asking is why the site is fine with people voicing support for violent terrorists. I'm sure that one mod will now lecture me about the marketplace of ideas and how we should let terrorists make themselves look bad by exposing themselves as idiots with zero consequences. Well, the Capitol mob did what they did because they organized online and knew they wouldn't face any consequences.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 10:54:05 am
Great point, if I ever had defended them. However, I actually referred to them as domestic terrorists right from the get go.

Then why do you feel the need to make excuses for them and minimize what they did?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 11, 2021, 10:57:02 am
Then why do you feel the need to make excuses for them and minimize what they did?

That's a great question. If i'd ever done that either. 

That's kind of the definition of butthurt and snowflakey - Someone who gets all upset about things that never happened.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 12:56:44 pm
Wow even Chris Christie is a calling for Trump's impeachment for inciting an insurrection!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/chris-christie-impeach-trump_n_5ffb6c36c5b66f3f795efffb?ri18n=true (https://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/chris-christie-impeach-trump_n_5ffb6c36c5b66f3f795efffb?ri18n=true)

I guess he hasn't heard about how terrible the CCP are and the injustice of not banning them from twitter!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 01:12:43 pm
Onnut did you miss the part where a violent mob of conspiracy theorists attacked the US Capitol with the intent of assassinating members of Congress and the Vice President?

waygook.org bans talk about religion because of its terms of use. All I'm asking is why the site is fine with people voicing support for violent terrorists. I'm sure that one mod will now lecture me about the marketplace of ideas and how we should let terrorists make themselves look bad by exposing themselves as idiots with zero consequences. Well, the Capitol mob did what they did because they organized online and knew they wouldn't face any consequences.
The issue have is that you lot seem to be all taking this incident and dialing it up to 11.

If you really believed this was a violent attack and serious attempt to topple the government, you'd be acting like people in that situation really do- You'd be calling your family, completely terrified, and making plans to potentially flee the capitol.

You aren't doing of that. Stop trying to make this more than what it is, simply to score political points.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 01:15:38 pm
The issue have is that you lot seem to be all taking this incident and dialing it up to 11.

If you really believed this was a violent attack and serious attempt to topple the government, you'd be acting like people in that situation really do- You'd be calling your family, completely terrified, and making plans to potentially flee the capitol.

You aren't doing of that. Stop trying to make this more than what it is, simply to score political points.

You support a thuggish ideology whose adherents just tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP. You literally cannot bring yourself to disparage these people or admit that refusing to hold them accountable for past violence has led to grave consequences.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 01:15:52 pm
It's coming out more and more that this was an organized attack on the Capitol, and many of the rioters intended to assassinate Senators and Congressmen. They were going around chanting "hang Pence."

Keep in mind that Graham is a very conservative Republican who has been one of Trump's biggest supporters.

Meanwhile Waygook seems content with T Rex outright supporting this act of domestic terrorism, Martino lying and pretending that it was harmless and no big deal, and hangook lying and claiming it was Antifa rioting in the Capitol. On the website where we can't discuss religious issues.

Also keep in mind that these three have spent the last 2 months spreading false claims that the election was stolen.

The other "conservatives" here realize this looks bad and makes them look bad and aren't showing their faces or bothering to defend this.
Yes, if there's one thing those photos screamed it was "organized and coordinated attempt at something", totally not "completely random mayhem."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 01:20:05 pm
You support a thuggish ideology whose adherents just tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP. You literally cannot bring yourself to disparage these people or admit that refusing to hold them accountable for past violence has led to grave consequences.
Those people were idiots and deserve whatever jail time is coming at them.

But stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. Are you seriously this easily rattled in real life? Are you genuinely in terror and fear at the government being under attack?

Or are you just trying to win an internet argumet? Newsflash: People can see you and your argument for what it is.

Free tip: Try going with "funny" instead of "THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!" People respect laughter more and it doesn't make you look like some dumb 1st worlder who tries to turn something into a 3rd world situation simply for clout. You could have just posted mocking photos and had a laugh at tasered himself guy. And a bunch of "Bye bye losers, enjoy the next 4 years!" type shit, but no, you had to try and make it something bigger than it is.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 11, 2021, 01:25:09 pm
Yes, if there's one thing those photos screamed it was "organized and coordinated attempt at something", totally not "completely random mayhem."

When was the last time the doors of the House chamber were barricaded shut with armed officers pointing guns through broken windows at rioters?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 11, 2021, 01:38:03 pm
This is what certain posters are trying to dismiss or deflect from. Officer Sidnick, an apparent avid Trump supporter bludgeoned to death by Trump-supporting terrorists.

(https://i.redd.it/0hhz3er0ufa61.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 01:39:22 pm
Yes, if there's one thing those photos screamed it was "organized and coordinated attempt at something", totally not "completely random mayhem."

Just out of interest when you go shopping for your cheese at Costco do you typically dress yourself in full military fatigues with an armoured vest, helmet and gas mask?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 02:37:34 pm
Just out of interest when you go shopping for your cheese at Costco do you typically dress yourself in full military fatigues with an armoured vest, helmet and gas mask?
1) If you live in small/rural towns across the midwest and south, that isn't that unusual, minus the helmet and mask.
2) In some of the photos, they weren't wearing ballistic vests but what appeared to be tactical vests.
3) We live in Korea. Isn't uncommon to see some ajosshi in the markets with a bunch of military-looking gear on.  I don't shit myself in fear, but maybe dipshit Euros do.
4) Regardless, this was NOT an organized and coordinated attack. It's like when conservatives label some flashmob of teens who go on a shoplifting spree "a coordinated series of attacks on local businesses by a terrorizing group" Like, seriously, stop trying to dial it up to 11 for political points.

Again, if this REALLY were a coordinated attack and attempt to take down the government and NOT some protest that got out of hand and turned into a very low intensity riot, you'd be behaving completely differently and talking about completely different things.

FFS, just go from "INSURRECTION!!!!!" and turn it into mockery. It's more fun. It's true. And people will all agree with you.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 02:41:09 pm
When was the last time the doors of the House chamber were barricaded shut with armed officers pointing guns through broken windows at rioters?
Never? I don't know. But as you just called it- It was a riot, not an insurrection or a coup.

This is what certain posters are trying to dismiss or deflect from. Officer Sidnick, an apparent avid Trump supporter bludgeoned to death by Trump-supporting terrorists.
No one is trying to dismiss or deflect. We're calling certain posters out for attempting to turn a riot into some sort of serious coup attempt/mortal threat to the government.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 11, 2021, 03:23:54 pm
Those people were idiots and deserve whatever jail time is coming at them.

But stop trying to turn this into something it isn't. Are you seriously this easily rattled in real life? Are you genuinely in terror and fear at the government being under attack?

People like me have been disgusted by your side for years. We have warned that continuing to coddle violent fascism would lead to something like this. We were told that we were overreacting and that everything would be fine. Now a mob of people from your side have sacked the Capitol with the intent of murdering congressmen and YOUR Vice President. And your side is still lying about how we're overreacting.

You might want to listen to what people like Lindsay Graham are saying about this. They know they were being targeted.

The mob killed a cop and attacked several police officers. What would you have to say if they had killed Pence or some Congressmen? "It's no big deal?" "Just some losers?"
"Yawn?"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 11, 2021, 03:25:16 pm
No one is trying to dismiss or deflect. We're calling certain posters out for attempting to turn a riot into some sort of serious coup attempt/mortal threat to the government.

The Phrase “Storm the Capitol” Was Used 100,000 Times Online in the Month Leading Up to the Mob

Many of these posts appeared in comments on viral tweets, and included explicit details about how to get inside the Capitol building.

...

Before the mob on Wednesday, a nonpartisan research organization called Advance Democracy Inc. published a report showing a spike in violent online rhetoric among Trump supporters. Last Monday, more than half of the top posts on a pro-Trump forum called TheDonald.win included calls for violence in the top five comments, with some people talking about how to sneak firearms into DC.

...

Twitter has warned that “plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating,” including a second attack on the US Capitol and state capitols on January 17. Private chat groups on Gab and Parler are also talking about disrupting Biden’s inauguration on January 20 with a “Million Militia March,” according to the Times. People are posting about ride shares and packing lists—some suggest bringing baseball bats, and others assault rifles.


https://www.motherjones.com/2020-elections/2021/01/the-phrase-storm-the-capitol-was-used-100000-times-online-in-the-month-leading-up-to-the-mob/

Yep, totally unplanned and random timing of events which miraculously coincided with the certification of electoral college votes by congress.

Keep trying to deflect. Nobody could have seen this coming...despite the people involved literally telling you what their plans are/were.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 11, 2021, 04:36:58 pm

Yep, totally unplanned and random timing of events which miraculously coincided with the certification of electoral college votes by congress.

Keep trying to deflect. Nobody could have seen this coming...despite the people involved literally telling you what their plans are/were.

This has been said to Martini previously and he has actually acknowledged before coming back for another round of deflection and subterfuge.

Anyhoo, Martini is a person of little real consequence and Trump looks like he'll go down in history as the first American president to be banned from Twitter and impeached twice.  He may well be convicted in the senate, sparing us all another run in 2024 and living the rest of his life in infamy.

Let's just hope their next half-arsed Coup attempt does less damage.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 11, 2021, 05:13:07 pm
I partly agree with you, and I don't want to glorify these morons as the revolutionaries they think they are, but context is important here. This happened in pursuit of overturning a democratic election. The President and many members of his party created and propagated the conspiracy theories that led to this extraordinary popular delusion, which led to at least five people getting killed. While it's not some military coup that will suddenly upend life as we know it, it's a pretty dark outcome and an ugly portent of things to come. And I think when you ignore all that, and fail to distinguish it from, say, drunk sports fans dancing on cars after a football game, it does look like you're deflecting.

We all know Marty's MO: he has an obsessive compulsion to argue the other side even when facts aren't on his side. He twists the definition of what happened; a riot, an insurrection, an attack on the Capitol into a "well it wasn't a coup attempt". 

This wasn't a protest gone wrong but a co-ordinated attempt to subvert the will of the people incited by a sitting President who lost his re-election.

It was timed, it was planned, records will reveal the extent to what was co-ordinated. Crimes committed could be conspiracy and sedition. This wasn't simply trespassing and theft.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 11, 2021, 06:00:43 pm
People like me have been disgusted by your side for years. We have warned that continuing to coddle violent fascism would lead to something like this. We were told that we were overreacting and that everything would be fine. Now a mob of people from your side have sacked the Capitol with the intent of murdering congressmen and YOUR Vice President. And your side is still lying about how we're overreacting.

You might want to listen to what people like Lindsay Graham are saying about this. They know they were being targeted.

The mob killed a cop and attacked several police officers. What would you have to say if they had killed Pence or some Congressmen? "It's no big deal?" "Just some losers?"
"Yawn?"
Yes, the Capitol was completely sacked to the point of...it being opened for business less than 24 hours later.
A mob of people also ran into the capitol with the intent of taking selfies and generally running around. They outnumbered the lunatics. 10s of thousands more remained outside and did nothing.

Calm the F down you panicky little whiner.

FFS, do you get this overdramatic about everything in your life?

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 11, 2021, 11:28:07 pm
The issue have is that you lot seem to be all taking this incident and dialing it up to 11.

If you really believed this was a violent attack and serious attempt to topple the government, you'd be acting like people in that situation really do- You'd be calling your family, completely terrified, and making plans to potentially flee the capitol.

You aren't doing of that. Stop trying to make this more than what it is, simply to score political points.
We're not in D.C., and we've already curtailed our movements due to the pandemic. But even where I live people are concerned about potential violence and that was before the storming of the capitol.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 12, 2021, 04:57:24 am
Yes, the Capitol was completely sacked to the point of...it being opened for business less than 24 hours later.
A mob of people also ran into the capitol with the intent of taking selfies and generally running around. They outnumbered the lunatics. 10s of thousands more remained outside and did nothing.

Calm the F down you panicky little whiner.

FFS, do you get this overdramatic about everything in your life?



So you're just outright ignoring the fact that the mob was running around chanting "hang Pence," and were clearly out to assassinate members of Congress and Pence, and beat a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher.

Or the fact that these are your people. Or the fact that you have spent the last 2 months repeating their completely false claims of a stolen election. Or that you have spent 4 years handwaving away violent and murderous far-right terrorism from your side.

If they had killed members of Congress what would you be saying? Probably trying to change the subject to the French Revolution or the critical reception of Jaws 2.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 12, 2021, 05:09:42 am
In this episode of the podcast, Sam Harris discusses two dangerous misconceptions about the siege of the Capitol.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/230-insurrection-lies/
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 12, 2021, 05:36:30 am
Yes, the Capitol was completely sacked to the point of...it being opened for business less than 24 hours later.
A mob of people also ran into the capitol with the intent of taking selfies and generally running around. They outnumbered the lunatics. 10s of thousands more remained outside and did nothing.

Calm the F down you panicky little whiner.

FFS, do you get this overdramatic about everything in your life?




Wow new low point even for you demart. This was a serious act of domestic terrorism fueled by your demigod trump.  I realize you are trying to downplay it for your own self but you’re totally misguided and sound like a complete kook. Are you still spouting blue lives matter after a police officer was killed too??
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 06:30:59 am

Calm the F down you panicky little whiner.

FFS, do you get this overdramatic about everything in your life?



Hey Martini, do you think the FBI are acting like a bunch of 'panicky little whiners' who think the 'sky is falling'  and should be 'focusing on the super bowl'  instead ?  :laugh:

FBI warns of plans for armed protests in all 50 states next week

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-warns-of-plans-for-armed-protests-in-all-50-states-next-week-01610395891

National Guard Bolsters Washington, D.C., Troop Levels to at Least 10,000

https://www.wsj.com/articles/national-guard-to-send-more-than-10-000-troops-to-washington-d-c-11610393244

Or are you planning on heading down the deep state conspiracy road for a wee bit more along with your 'patriotic'  brother in arms hangook77?
 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 12, 2021, 07:50:55 am
Yes, the Capitol was completely sacked to the point of...it being opened for business less than 24 hours later.
A mob of people also ran into the capitol with the intent of taking selfies and generally running around. They outnumbered the lunatics. 10s of thousands more remained outside and did nothing.

Calm the F down you panicky little whiner.

FFS, do you get this overdramatic about everything in your life?



You know, D, it's awful to be wrong.  We know it is.  I've been wrong a few times myself.

But you know the correct thing to do when you find out you're wrong, and you've been wrong all along about a certain treasonous Cheeto?

Not this.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 12, 2021, 10:16:10 am
You're supposed to go after the BROWN PEOPLE...not me! I'm a "real American!"  :police: :afro: :laugh: :P

Waygo0k tip: All you have to do is COMPLY!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegNO9waSSc
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 12, 2021, 10:23:35 am
Don't these videos actually go against your narrative that the US police are racially biased? You need to post a few videos of them giving Dylan Roof a hamburger and the like.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 12, 2021, 10:27:43 am
Don't these videos actually go against your narrative that the US police are racially biased? You need to post a few videos of them giving Dylan Roof a hamburger and the like.

As always, you completely nd utterly miss the point!  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Guess who's not on the no fly list  8)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cKO9cmg_wIfmXG6qNDAwWbwExLU=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x675/filters:focal(1178x723:1658x1203)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/65518423/GettyImages_633137780.0.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 12, 2021, 10:31:08 am
Well I wasn't sure, that's why i asked the question, but if you don't want to tell us slower people what your point is, fair enough
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 10:33:48 am
You're supposed to go after the BROWN PEOPLE...not me! I'm a "real American!"  :police: :afro: :laugh: :P

Waygo0k tip: All you have to do is COMPLY!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CegNO9waSSc


Quote
Quote from: stoat on January 09, 2021, 08:24:23 am
I see, so white privilege and entitlement directly lead to crime in the US. Is that just for domestic terrorism or crime in general?

Quote
Ok so you're acknowledging these are 'acts of domestic terrorism'. How else would you explain the lack of concern or fear of any repercussions in these cases rather making any whopping generalisations?  Why wouldn't they feel concerned about filming themselves live breaking into offices in the Capitol building, vandalising, assaulting police officers and steeling property?  It's beyond stupidity even for Trump supporters.  :laugh:

The first quote I heard was that terrorist pinned to the ground screaming
Quote
You treat me like a f**king black person
It would appear to acknowledge an expectation that because he's white he's should be treated differently.
If you're reading Stoat, this is what I was alluding to previously when I suggested white privilege/entitlement  may have contributed these terrorists having the gall to live stream themselves while committing these acts. I'm sure how there could be more damming evidence than this.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 12, 2021, 10:39:26 am
The first quote I heard was that terrorist pinned to the round screamingIt would appear to acknowledge an expectation that because he's white he's should be treated differently.
If you're reading Stoat this is what I was alluding to previously when I suggested white privilege/entitlement  may have contributed these terrorists having the gall to live stream themselves while committing these acts. I'm sure how there could be more damming evidence than this.



Oh he knows exactly what's going on.

He's just trying to play dumb as a way of steering the conversation away from the reality he doesn't want to admit exists.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on January 12, 2021, 11:05:15 am
Quote
You treat me like a f**king black person
It would appear to acknowledge an expectation that because he's white he's should be treated differently.
If you're reading Stoat, this is what I was alluding to previously when I suggested white privilege/entitlement  may have contributed these terrorists having the gall to live stream themselves while committing these acts. I'm sure how there could be more damming evidence than this.

Either he's swallowed all the BLM propaganda and actually believes the US police never lay a hand on white people, or he's making a smart-assed comment about the police being systemically racist. I'd go with the second one.

It reminds me of that clip a few years ago when a cop told a white woman to relax because the police only kill black people and TYT reported it as if he actually meant what he said.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 11:12:18 am
Either he's swallowed all the BLM propaganda and actually believes the US police never lay a hand on white people, or he's making a smart-assed comment about the police being systemically racist. I'd go with the second one.

It reminds me of that clip a few years ago when a cop told a white woman to relax because the police only kill black people and TYT reported it as if he actually meant what he said.



And streaming their terrorism live from the Capitol building was also 'making a smart-assed comment about the police being systemically racist'?

I'm sure it will bode well for him in court as he's also charged with resisting arrest. Yes, quite a smart arse.

Racial terrorist apologist much ?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 11:55:48 am
You know, D, it's awful to be wrong.  We know it is.  I've been wrong a few times myself.

But you know the correct thing to do when you find out you're wrong, and you've been wrong all along about a certain treasonous Cheeto?

Not this.
Notice how you never cited specifically what was wrong? That's because nothing was wrong, so instead you just went with that angle.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 12:08:58 pm

Wow new low point even for you demart. This was a serious act of domestic terrorism fueled by your demigod trump.  I realize you are trying to downplay it for your own self but you’re totally misguided and sound like a complete kook. Are you still spouting blue lives matter after a police officer was killed too??
If it was such a terrible act, the response would be genuine concern for safety, not "How can we blame Trump and the right for this in every way possible?", which is what your response is.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 12, 2021, 12:10:55 pm
At least we got some funny pics out of this debacle. The dude with his feet up on Pelosi's desk, guy who stole the podium, furry dude in the chamber, etc.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 12:11:36 pm
Judging by the posts on this thread, you guys are actually more concerned with me than Trump and all of this. If this was a real threat, your reaction would not be "Let me get on waygook.org so I can yell at DeMart"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 12, 2021, 12:40:23 pm
If it was such a terrible act, the response would be genuine concern for safety, not "How can we blame Trump and the right for this in every way possible?", which is what your response is.

Dude you need an intervention. You’re delusional at best.

Ps it was a serious act and the American fascists are planning more “protests”.  I wonder how many people will die in those?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 12:43:28 pm
Dude you need an intervention. You’re delusional at best.

Ps it was a serious act and the American fascists are planning more “protests”.  I wonder how many people will die in those?
So serious the ppl on here were more concerned with arguing on waygook.org than safety.

Actions speak louder than words.

Notice the lack of "Do I need to sell my stocks/convert my cash/etc." Threads about this? Shows how truly concerned people really are.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS MORE THAN IT IS. WE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 12, 2021, 12:52:49 pm
So serious the ppl on here were more concerned with arguing on waygook.org than safety.

Actions speak louder than words.

Notice the lack of "Do I need to sell my stocks/convert my cash/etc." Threads about this? Shows how truly concerned people really are.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS MORE THAN IT IS. WE CAN SEE THROUGH YOU.

“WE” has got to be the voices in your head because no-one else on this board is arguing your inane points.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 01:57:07 pm
“WE” has got to be the voices in your head because no-one else on this board is arguing your inane points.
Just admit that your behavior is completely inconsistent with someone genuinely concerned about insurrection or a coup.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 12, 2021, 02:23:01 pm
Just admit that your behavior is completely inconsistent with someone genuinely concerned about insurrection or a coup.

How many Trumpers need to be shot and killed by law enforcement for you to take the threat seriously?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 02:33:47 pm
Just admit that your behavior is completely inconsistent with someone genuinely concerned about insurrection or a coup.


 
So your point is that the fact that people aren't exhibiting enough concern about their investment portfolio is evidence that a group of armed thugs storming the Capital building, killing a police officer, injuring countless others,  chanting "hang Pence", going after the speaker of house and attempted to prevent the certification of election is not an attempted act of insurrection?
 
Did I miss something? Has crack become legal in the ROK? 

But the legislature attempting oversight of the executive is a Cue? 

No wonder people post anonymously here !  What was the title of that book you say you've published?


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 02:47:02 pm
How many Trumpers need to be shot and killed by law enforcement for you to take the threat seriously?
Well, you're not taking it seriously. I mean, you're being performative about taking it seriously, but you aren't truly taking it seriously. Your actions and behavior are not consistent with someone taking it seriously.

So your point is that the fact that people aren't exhibiting enough concern about their investment portfolio is evidence that a group of armed thugs storming the Capital building, killing a police officer, injuring countless others,  chanting "hang Pence", going after the speaker of house and attempted to prevent the certification of election is not an attempted act of insurrection?
The "so your point is..." tell for cognitive dissonance.

The point is that you are exaggerating what happened for the purposes of scoring political points and debate, and what you genuinely feel that is not what you are saying. Your actions are inconsistent with someone who genuinely thinks there was a serious insurrection attempt.

All those things happened, but a real, serious, grave insurrection attempt it was not. At no point did anyone seriously think the government of the United States was in danger, nor that this had a serious chance of success.

You know, if you hadn't tried to oversell this and just engaged in merciless mockery of those involved, you would have avoided this problem. It's not my fault you tried to oversell this and in the process, tipped your hand.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 02:50:56 pm
Well, you're not taking it seriously. I mean, you're being performative about taking it seriously, but you aren't truly taking it seriously. Your actions and behavior are not consistent with someone taking it seriously.
The "so your point is..." tell for cognitive dissonance.

The point is that you are exaggerating what happened for the purposes of scoring political points and debate, and what you genuinely feel that is not what you are saying. Your actions are inconsistent with someone who genuinely thinks there was a serious insurrection attempt.

All those things happened, but a real, serious, grave insurrection attempt it was not. At no point did anyone seriously think the government of the United States was in danger, nor that this had a serious chance of success.

You know, if you hadn't tried to oversell this and just engaged in merciless mockery of those involved, you would have avoided this problem. It's not my fault you tried to oversell this and in the process, tipped your hand.
:laugh: :laugh:
And the name of your book is ................... ................?

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 02:53:48 pm
Aren't most of you making a big deal about this not even American?

And for the Americans, when news of this broke, did you run to call home or message your family out of concern for their well-being? Or did you log onto twitter or waygook.org to blast people?

Yeah, real serious insurrection threat we had there.  :rolleyes:

And the name of your book is ................... ................?
Dude, you know its true. You know you aren't genuinely worried about this and aren't really as concerned about it as you claim. Stop pretending.

At least you're attempting humor now, which is good, and the direction you should have gone from the get go.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 02:56:28 pm
Aren't most of you making a big deal about this not even American?

And for the Americans, when news of this broke, did you run to call home or message your family out of concern for their well-being? Or did you log onto twitter or waygook.org to blast people?

Yeah, real serious insurrection threat we had there.  :rolleyes:
Dude, you know its true. You know you aren't genuinely worried about this and aren't really as concerned about it as you claim. Stop pretending.

At least you're attempting humor now, which is good, and the direction you should have gone from the get go.
Oh do tell me Marti. I so want to buy it!  :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 03:21:39 pm
I'm guessing it would have to be some kind of comical fiction along the lines of .

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/67/Confederacy_of_dunces_cover.jpg/200px-Confederacy_of_dunces_cover.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 12, 2021, 03:40:42 pm
How many Trumpers need to be shot and killed by law enforcement for you to take the threat seriously?

DeFartino throughout history:

The French Revolution: "It was just a few losers with no deodorant. No big deal."

The Black Death: "People will forget all about this by Shrove Tuesday. Yawn!"

The Battle of the Somme: "Were you really so concerned by the supposed mass slaughter that you sent a telegraph to your family? I thought not. Boring!"

The Holodomor: "You're not acting like someone actually concerned about the mass starvation of millions of Ukrainians. I'm an expert on this matter and it doesn't matter that you've spent the last four years warning about the risk of starvation in the USSR while I belittled you for being alarmist morons."

The Cambodian Genocide: "OMG did you see this one tweet by the Bulgarian government?????"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 12, 2021, 04:02:07 pm
I guess if he were going for more of an autobiography it might
be

"Flooding the Zone with Bullsh*t : My Life in the ROK"
(https://www.englishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Peter-Gibbons-Office-Space-Stare-at-Desk.gif)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 12, 2021, 05:06:35 pm
Its clear you guys are more worried about safety and an insurrection than personal internet beefs. Hence your focus on helping others in this time of crisis, and not posts about me.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 13, 2021, 07:36:45 am
Its clear you guys are more worried about safety and an insurrection than personal internet beefs. Hence your focus on helping others in this time of crisis, and not posts about me.

We are in Korea, most of us here anyway. It is possible to be worried about violence from these extremists groups rather than the actual collapse of American society.

But I have found some other snowflakes for you to convince that the assault on the Capitol was no biggie,  https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution

Quote
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff reminded American forces Tuesday of their oath to defend the Constitution following the attacks on the Capitol building last week.

The letter was addressed to The Joint Force, which is made up of about 1.3 million active duty service members and more than 811,000 National Guard and reservists — all of whom swore an oath to "Support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." The oath has stood since America's founding nearly 250 years ago.

"The violent riot in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, 2021, was a direct assault on the U.S. Congress, the Capitol building, and our Constitutional process," the memorandum said. "We witnessed actions inside the Capitol building that were inconsistent with the rule of law. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection."

The Joint Chiefs emphasized in the letter that President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated on Jan. 20, becoming the 46th Commander in Chief, and any acts to disrupt the constitutional process not only violate military values, but the law.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff is made up of the top eight military officials in the country. It includes the chair and vice chair, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the chiefs of staff of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Space Operations and the National Guard Bureau. Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was appointed by President Donald Trump last December. He and the other members are military advisors to the president, the secretary of defense and the National Security Council.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 13, 2021, 07:56:50 am
I guess if he were going for more of an autobiography it might
be

"Flooding the Zone with Bullsh*t : My Life in the ROK"
(https://www.englishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Peter-Gibbons-Office-Space-Stare-at-Desk.gif)
Let's be honest with ourselves, that goes for a lot of us lol
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 13, 2021, 09:00:34 am
We are in Korea, most of us here anyway. It is possible to be worried about violence from these extremists groups rather than the actual collapse of American society.

But I have found some other snowflakes for you to convince that the assault on the Capitol was no biggie,  https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution


Joint Chiefs?  Deep State, mate.  Keep up!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 13, 2021, 10:58:54 am
Who was that guy that said this would all be forgotten by early February? I heard he's an author but, oddly, doesn't like promoting his books.

Quote
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing that it will make it easier to purge him from the party, according to people familiar with his thinking.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12/us/impeachment-trump-25th-amendment (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12/us/impeachment-trump-25th-amendment)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:19:17 am
Who was that guy that said this would all be forgotten by early February? I heard he's an author but, oddly, doesn't like promoting his books.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12/us/impeachment-trump-25th-amendment (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12/us/impeachment-trump-25th-amendment)
It's mid January and you're already declaring victory? As I said, we are one Jussie Smollet away from this being completely blown off the front pages.

What are they going to do? Impeach Trump? Sure in 6 months some court case might pop up to bring this story back but shit will move on. If 2-6 months from now the Dems are focusing on trials and not  legislation, they will get eviscerated in the off-year and midterms.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:20:33 am
Thunderlips and Adel, are you even American? I know Mr. C is, but it seems like a good chunk of people losing their minds over this aren't even Americans.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 13, 2021, 11:25:05 am
the goalposts have moved once again
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: CallinIn on January 13, 2021, 11:26:27 am
Thunderlips and Adel, are you even American? I know Mr. C is, but it seems like a good chunk of people losing their minds over this aren't even Americans.

I imagine it's more that they're the only ones willing to engage with you, American or not. As an American I wholeheartedly disagree with most things you've said here over the last few days here. And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

So as an American, I'm content with them arguing with you.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:29:47 am
We are in Korea, most of us here anyway. It is possible to be worried about violence from these extremists groups rather than the actual collapse of American society.
Are you really worried? The reason you're posting here is your genuine concern over extremism in America, not "win internet argument"?

You overplayed your hand and got caught up in the contradiction of what you claimed vs. your actions. Its a common mistake. Don't feel bad for having gotten caught.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:37:03 am
I imagine it's more that they're the only ones willing to engage with you, American or not. As an American I wholeheartedly disagree with most things you've said here over the last few days here. And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

So as an American, I'm content with them arguing with you.
Question- As an American, in response to this, what actions or preparations have you and your family taken and is this widespread?

Also, how would you compare all of this to the Vietnam era in terms of tension and genuine chance of upheaval?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 13, 2021, 11:39:28 am
It's mid January and you're already declaring victory? As I said, we are one Jussie Smollet away from this being completely blown off the front pages.



And Martini continues to flood the zone with bullsh*t!  Is that the name of your book?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: CallinIn on January 13, 2021, 11:45:00 am
Question- As an American, in response to this, what actions or preparations have you and your family taken and is this widespread?

Also, how would you compare all of this to the Vietnam era in terms of tension and genuine chance of upheaval?

I must not have been clear, Mr. DeMartino:
And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

I just came here to make you aware that I exist. A person that disagrees with you and agrees with these potential 'non-Americans'. BUT, and again I say, because reading comprehension is godawful on this site: I decided that [arguing with you would] be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:54:23 am
And Martini continues to flood the zone with bullsh*t!  Is that the name of your book?
I'm curious as to what thought process in your brain allows you to declare something "bullshit" that is a prediction for Feb. 2021, when it is Jan. 13th.

Are you seriously suggesting this will be the BIG story in America for the next three weeks? Are you seriously suggesting a Jussie Smollet/Michael Richards or George Floyd type story wouldn't instantly blow this off the front pages?

If that happened the Dems would instantly pivot from impeachment back to wearing Kente cloth.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on January 13, 2021, 11:55:43 am
what actions or preparations have you and your family taken and is this widespread?
fwiw my (non-white) friends have been talking in our group chat about how everyone should just stay home when the crazy whites come to the city to do their protest
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 13, 2021, 11:56:54 am
I'm curious as to what thought process in your brain allows you to declare something "bullshit"

Quote
it's mid January and you're already declaring victory? As I said, we are one Jussie Smollet away from this being completely blown off the front pages.


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 11:59:37 am


You think if another Jussie Smollet type situation happened it WOULDN'T blow this story off the front pages?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 13, 2021, 12:31:51 pm
Some Americans remembered their history lessons from previous generations. The similarities between some Americans thinking now and 1930’s germany is apparent. I also am disgusted but not surprised with the hypocrisy of trump and his mindless followers who are so intent to overthrow an election based on their own lies and propaganda. They claim blue lives then kill a cop, they claim freedom and try to destroy it and they claim authoritarian rule over democracy. Yes I am American, and I have serious misgivings about returning home with my family.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 12:42:50 pm
Some Americans remembered their history lessons from previous generations. The similarities between some Americans thinking now and 1930’s germany is apparent. I also am disgusted but not surprised with the hypocrisy of trump and his mindless followers who are so intent to overthrow an election based on their own lies and propaganda. They claim blue lives then kill a cop, they claim freedom and try to destroy it and they claim authoritarian rule over democracy. Yes I am American, and I have serious misgivings about returning home with my family.
You do realize that if you turned off the news and its steady diet of fear porn, that is deliberately designed to addict you to its content by appealing to certain emotional sectors of your brain you wouldn't be nearly as concerned, right?

You also realize that for every parallel, there are like 10 reasons it is NOT the same right? Are you looking at the reasons its not or just focusing on one end like a stupid person? You aren't stupid, right?

At least 67% of America doesn't think we're in 1930s Germany. Heck many on the left think that's overblown. Calm the F down.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 13, 2021, 12:53:03 pm
“Gobbledygook”.  I think that’s the name of Marty’s book which is just a collection of randomly thrown together stream of consciousness diatribes.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 01:55:28 pm
“Gobbledygook”.  I think that’s the name of Marty’s book which is just a collection of randomly thrown together stream of consciousness diatribes.
Yup. This is definitely all about genuine concern for the safety of America and not settling personal internet scores.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 02:05:27 pm
fwiw my (non-white) friends have been talking in our group chat about how everyone should just stay home when the crazy whites come to the city to do their protest
I mean, I knew white people who thought the same thing with BLM protests. I'd be just as equally worried, which basically means not at all unless I'm dumb enough to drive right into the middle of it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 02:15:45 pm
I imagine it's more that they're the only ones willing to engage with you, American or not. As an American I wholeheartedly disagree with most things you've said here over the last few days here. And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

So as an American, I'm content with them arguing with you.
I must not have been clear, Mr. DeMartino:
And though I have started typing responses to you, I decided that it'd be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

I just came here to make you aware that I exist. A person that disagrees with you and agrees with these potential 'non-Americans'. BUT, and again I say, because reading comprehension is godawful on this site: I decided that [arguing with you would] be a waste of my time, energy, and sanity.

Welp, since you called me out by name twice, you opened this can of worms so you don't get to call it off. If you didn't want to deal with me, should have stayed quiet and not mentioned it.

I just want to say that the post above is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance- Pertinent questions that 1) seeks to clarify whether the person's actions match their rhetoric (i.e. If you say hurricanes are coming, but you're renting a beachfront for the weekend, then don't expect people to take your view seriously) 2) Whether you have put this in any historical context regarding danger and threat and rather than addressing them, the person just shuts down because they understand that addressing them would make their point not as strong.

Those ARE important considerations for the topic. Your response to them has basically been to jam your fingers in your ears and declare yourself above it all...after you chose to come down into the muck.

You don't get to call someone out then declare that they should leave you alone and that you won't respond. That's what a coward does. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 13, 2021, 05:36:44 pm
Welp, since you called me out by name twice, you opened this can of worms so you don't get to call it off. If you didn't want to deal with me, should have stayed quiet and not mentioned it.

I just want to say that the post above is a perfect example of cognitive dissonance- Pertinent questions that 1) seeks to clarify whether the person's actions match their rhetoric (i.e. If you say hurricanes are coming, but you're renting a beachfront for the weekend, then don't expect people to take your view seriously) 2) Whether you have put this in any historical context regarding danger and threat and rather than addressing them, the person just shuts down because they understand that addressing them would make their point not as strong.

Those ARE important considerations for the topic. Your response to them has basically been to jam your fingers in your ears and declare yourself above it all...after you chose to come down into the muck.

You don't get to call someone out then declare that they should leave you alone and that you won't respond. That's what a coward does. If you're going to dish it out, be prepared to take it.

Some people would rent a beachfront property when a storm is coming though; meteorologists, storm chasers, surfers, trumpers if the storm is from msm....
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 06:00:01 pm
Some people would rent a beachfront property when a storm is coming though; meteorologists, storm chasers, surfers, trumpers if the storm is from msm....
Dude we're talking normal people, not specialists. Are you the equivalent of one of those? Remember, YOU are the one calling this some sort of serious insurrection/coup attempt. Are you behaving like it really was? No. You're behaving like someone who claims an INSANE hurricane is coming when really you're getting a strong storm that isn't even a tropical depression, all while planning to chill at your beachfront property. Like, have your actions match your words.

That's the tell for why this "INSURRECTION!!!!!" stuff is full of crap- You aren't acting like you should be in a real insurrection and serious threat. You are acting like what the event was- A minor kerfluffle that is great fodder for political debates and scoring points.

As I said, mockery was the better approach. Instead you went with dialing it up to 11 and you overplayed your hand.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 13, 2021, 06:20:50 pm
This is the point where most conservatives will finally admit that they can't defend this seditious, violent bullshit anymore and just walk away.

This is also the point where soulless, ghoulish morons double down on being wrong because they can't admit defeat.

https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates/2021/01/12/956170188/joint-chiefs-remind-u-s-forces-that-they-defend-the-constitution

Quote
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff reminded American forces Tuesday of their oath to defend the Constitution following the attacks on the Capitol building last week.

The letter was addressed to the joint force, which is made up of about 1.3 million active-duty service members and more than 811,000 National Guardsmen and reservists — all of whom swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

"The violent riot in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021 was a direct assault on the U.S. Congress, the Capitol building, and our Constitutional process," the memorandum said. "We witnessed actions inside the Capitol building that were inconsistent with the rule of law. The rights of freedom of speech and assembly do not give anyone the right to resort to violence, sedition and insurrection."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 06:53:20 pm
Yes, the proportionate response to what happened is to declare it sedition and insurrection. Lets follow it up with some drone strikes and mass hangings.

The scumbags who beat the cop deserve felony murder charges. The people who brought guns into it with the intent to go after the cops deserve stiff felony charges. The people taking selfies and vandalizing? Charge them with unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, vandalism and larceny.

But is this truly about safeguarding the Republic or vengeance?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 13, 2021, 07:05:23 pm
Yes, the proportionate response to what happened is to declare it sedition and insurrection. Lets follow it up with some drone strikes and mass hangings.

The scumbags who beat the cop deserve felony murder charges. The people who brought guns into it with the intent to go after the cops deserve stiff felony charges. The people taking selfies and vandalizing? Charge them with unlawful assembly, criminal trespass, vandalism and larceny.

But is this truly about safeguarding the Republic or vengeance?

You tell us since you present yourself  to be more knowledgeable and experienced than the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 13, 2021, 07:13:44 pm
You tell us since you present yourself  to be more knowledgeable and experienced than the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
You're right. The Joint Chiefs are infallible and their views on political and legal questions must be regarded as such by anyone not in a position of federal political power.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 13, 2021, 08:23:02 pm
You're right. The Joint Chiefs are infallible and their views on political and legal questions must be regarded as such by anyone not in a position of federal political power.

Sadly, you can't even begin to realize how pathetic and ridiculous you sound here.  You're arguing against the Joint Chiefs, who never, ever get involved in this kind of thing.  The reason they are is because, read carefully, this was an armed insurrection against the United States.

No one, NO ONE gives a flying f*** about anything you have to say. 

Just a head's up, my old sparring partner. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 14, 2021, 12:38:11 am
Question- As an American, in response to this, what actions or preparations have you and your family taken and is this widespread?

Also, how would you compare all of this to the Vietnam era in terms of tension and genuine chance of upheaval?
During the 60s and early 70s, no one was afraid of peaceful protests against the Vietnam War.  That's a complete red herring.

People were concerned about the potential for civil rights riots to become violent and of people like H Rap Brown.

I, like most people in the US, protect myself by not bringing up politics because the potential for a trumpist to become violent in response is real.  In DC before trump's insurrection,  many businesses in the vicinity had closed and boarded up their windows and residents were steering far clear of the area.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 14, 2021, 12:40:27 am
You do realize that if you turned off the news and its steady diet of fear porn, that is deliberately designed to addict you to its content by appealing to certain emotional sectors of your brain you wouldn't be nearly as concerned, right?

You also realize that for every parallel, there are like 10 reasons it is NOT the same right? Are you looking at the reasons its not or just focusing on one end like a stupid person? You aren't stupid, right?

At least 67% of America doesn't think we're in 1930s Germany. Heck many on the left think that's overblown. Calm the F down.
Give us your 10 red herrings. OK,  three can be false analogies.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 14, 2021, 12:42:39 am
That's what a coward does. 
You should know. You spend a great deal of effort supporting one.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 01:30:45 am
Panic buttons were inexplicably torn out ahead of Capitol riots, says Ayanna Pressley chief of staff

Panic buttons installed in Ayanna Pressley’s congressional office were torn out before rioters stormed the Capitol last week, her staff have said. 

Sarah Groh, who serves as Ms Pressley’s chief of staff, was with the congresswoman when president Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the US Capitol building last Wednesday.

...

According to CNN, two US Capitol Police officers have since been suspended and at least 10 more are under investigation for playing potential roles in the riot.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/capitol-riots-ayanna-pressley-panic-buttons-b1786678.html

But it was just a 'random' mob that happened to get a little over excited...yeah?

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 02:09:24 am
Sadly, you can't even begin to realize how pathetic and ridiculous you sound here.  You're arguing against the Joint Chiefs, who never, ever get involved in this kind of thing.  The reason they are is because, read carefully, this was an armed insurrection against the United States.

No one, NO ONE gives a flying f*** about anything you have to say. 

Just a head's up, my old sparring partner. 
Again, you're overplaying your hand. Thinking like this is how we flew off the handle post 9/11 and invaded Iraq.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 02:16:37 am
During the 60s and early 70s, no one was afraid of peaceful protests against the Vietnam War.  That's a complete red herring.
Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. You had f*cking riots outside the Democratic National Convention in 1968. You had Kent State. You had mass protests after Nixon bombed Cambodia. Campuses across America were shut down due to a general student strike in 1970. You had people setting themselves on fire. You had mass civil disturbances that dwarf the BLM protests in scale.

This is a fart in the wind compared to that.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 02:21:55 am
I, like most people in the US, protect myself by not bringing up politics because the potential for a trumpist to become violent in response is real.  In DC before trump's insurrection,  many businesses in the vicinity had closed and boarded up their windows and residents were steering far clear of the area.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Yeah, if there's a real socially unpopular opinion, its being opposed to Donald Trump. Never seen that.

And how many businesses were destroyed during his insurrection?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 14, 2021, 05:02:05 am
Guys just stop responding to him, it's what he feeds off of because he is a contrarian troll addicted to defending the indefensible. Just ignore him, don't engage with him. Just stay on topic and continue to discuss details about the fact that his side committed sedition and insurrection tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP and killed a cop.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 14, 2021, 07:42:29 am
Hey, look!  Waygook's turdburglar-in-residence thinks it was the protesters at Kent State who were violent.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on January 14, 2021, 07:49:18 am
Yeah, if there's a real socially unpopular opinion, its being opposed to Donald Trump. Never seen that.

And how many businesses were destroyed during his insurrection?

And how many cops were killed during BLM protests vs Trumpers "peaceful protests"??????
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 10:09:58 am
At least four cops killed in the George Floyd protests. One cop killed in the Stop the Steal protests. How many deaths dues to the spreading of coronavirus during these protests? Not calculable.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on January 14, 2021, 10:12:29 am
"Antifa & BLM turned every major city and state capitol into shitholes last year, torching small businesses, smashing windows, tearing down statues, looting & shooting with impunity.

"Don't talk to us about how America became a Third World country 'today.' "
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin

Dems and their double standards.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 14, 2021, 10:21:28 am
"Antifa & BLM turned every major city and state capitol into shitholes last year, torching small businesses, smashing windows, tearing down statues, looting & shooting with impunity.

"Don't talk to us about how America became a Third World country 'today.' "
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin

Dems and their double standards.



We get it, you're a white supremacist who supports domestic terrorism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 14, 2021, 10:23:25 am
"Antifa & BLM turned every major city and state capitol into shitholes last year, torching small businesses, smashing windows, tearing down statues, looting & shooting with impunity.

"Don't talk to us about how America became a Third World country 'today.' "
https://twitter.com/michellemalkin

Dems and their double standards.



Your only standard seems to be posting racist content. That and the Nazi sign on top of it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 14, 2021, 10:26:58 am
At least four cops killed in the George Floyd protests. One cop killed in the Stop the Steal protests. How many deaths dues to the spreading of coronavirus during these protests? Not calculable.

Snopes disagrees with you ( https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/06/09/cops-killed-george-floyd-protests/ ) and I'll trust Snopes over you, unless you have a John Stossel video. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 10:43:41 am
Hey, look!  Waygook's turdburglar-in-residence thinks it was the protesters at Kent State who were violent.
Where did I say that?

I mentioned Kent State to show there has been no action by govt agencies at that level and how nothing during these times has approached that.

Do you think this whole Trump period has been worse than the Nam era? Seriously? Yet you lot are huffing and puffing like it is.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 10:45:52 am
That Snopes link is debunking a specific meme. I got the info here:
_________________

At least twelve police officers have been shot in the line of duty as riots and protests raged throughout the country following the death of George Floyd.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/12-police-officers-shot-during-100000431.html

A number of these police officers have been killed in the line of duty, including retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, Santa Cruz County Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller, and contract security officer Dave Patrick Underwood.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 10:52:36 am
Guys just stop responding to him, it's what he feeds off of because he is a contrarian troll addicted to defending the indefensible. Just ignore him, don't engage with him. Just stay on topic and continue to discuss details about the fact that his side committed sedition and insurrection tried to assassinate members of Congress and the VP and killed a cop.
You know Mayor Haggar, it might do you a world of good to question things, instead of going with the first impulse that enters your brain and stubbornly and stupidly sticking with it.

Have you ever changed your opinion or explored things on here? It's always you declaring things to be a certain way, in blunt terms, then insulting anyone who doesn't agree.

Anyways, again, if you're do concerned about the safety of the country, why are you on here constantly arguing with me about it?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 10:55:16 am
 The heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.amp.html

 During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that “he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Chief Brown said. “He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 11:00:18 am
The heavily armed sniper who gunned down police officers in downtown Dallas, leaving five of them dead, specifically set out to kill as many white officers as he could.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/dallas-police-shooting.amp.html

 During the standoff, Mr. Johnson, who was black, told police negotiators that “he was upset about Black Lives Matter,” Chief Brown said. “He said he was upset about the recent police shootings. The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers.”




You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them right?

White nationalists LOOOOOOVE misrepresenting the facts.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 11:01:54 am
That Snopes link is debunking a specific meme. I got the info here:
_________________

At least twelve police officers have been shot in the line of duty as riots and protests raged throughout the country following the death of George Floyd.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/12-police-officers-shot-during-100000431.html

A number of these police officers have been killed in the line of duty, including retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, Santa Cruz County Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller, and contract security officer Dave Patrick Underwood.

Mostly thanks to white nationalists targeting police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on January 14, 2021, 11:02:49 am
That Snopes link is debunking a specific meme. I got the info here:
_________________

At least twelve police officers have been shot in the line of duty as riots and protests raged throughout the country following the death of George Floyd.

https://www.google.com.ph/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/12-police-officers-shot-during-100000431.html

A number of these police officers have been killed in the line of duty, including retired St. Louis police captain David Dorn, Santa Cruz County Deputy Sgt. Damon Gutzwiller, and contract security officer Dave Patrick Underwood.
I just  wonder if you can read.  NONE of these were on-duty police officers killed during protests.  NONE OF THEM.  The Shay Mikalonis case is certainly sad.  And David Dorn's death, while tragic, occurred while he was protecting a friend's jewelry store and was a retired cop who was not on duty.  Underwood's tragic death did not occur at a protest, just some anti-cop drive-by murderer.

By pointing this out, I am in no way trying to defend violence, either against cops or protesters.  I'm just pointing out untruth.

Let's compare:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_police_violence_incidents_during_George_Floyd_protests
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 11:06:44 am
Mostly thanks to white nationalists targeting police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings
Question, how did you get "mostly" from 12 cops shot by citing an article where two were killed?

Not that I disagree with what Mr. C pointed out. Those were off duty killings. It might be significant if they were moonlighting in uniform. Otherwise you can't call them a police death. L I's point is weak.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 11:16:44 am
I do think the broader point of having to apply the "mostly peaceful" standard fairly is valid. That goes for both BLM and these Trump protests. You can call both mostly peaceful based on % that engaged in violent vs. destructive vs. unlawful vs. completely civil. Or you can condemn the events as a whole and their supporters.

But you cant tar one whole side of the political spectrum using one standard while insisting that we focus on the conduct of the majority when it comes to the side you support. We have to try and be fair and impartial.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 11:26:11 am
A poster asked how many police were killed during BLM protests. The answer is zero? Also, how many black protesters were killed by police? Appears to be zero. I’m reading there were dozens of deaths but these were due to opportunists looting. Not really protesters if they are just looking to make a quick buck. (Or are they? I dunno.) Billions in property damage via the arson and looting. And we really should admit the protests led to thousands of deaths because of the spreading of coronavirus.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 11:44:37 am
Let's compare

Injured protesters against killed cops is not a fair comparison. Better to do against injured cops (of which there were many).
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 11:48:17 am
You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them right?

White nationalists LOOOOOOVE misrepresenting the facts.

I’m gonna call you out as being factually inaccurate here. If you can prove me wrong on this I’ll eat humble pie. If not, you will.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 12:02:47 pm
Johnson "liked" the Facebook pages of black nationalist organizations such as the New Black Panther Party, Nation of Islam, and Black Riders Liberation Army.

On Facebook, Johnson posted an angry and "disjointed" post against white people several days before the attack.

_______________

He was a member of the local New Black Panther  chapter for six months before having a falling out; that’s what waygo0k is thinking of.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 12:08:38 pm
My point is potential for violence exists on both sides. We don’t like it. Thankfully it is rare, but we should work to make it more rare. And also appreciate our lives when thinking about how statistically uncommon it is (thanks to the hard work of many). The word is actually getting safer. Radicalization online is a problem, but the internet can also tempter it ...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 12:14:11 pm
Here’s an example:
___________________ _

Islamic terror has been trending down for five years.

Some American officials said this would never happen.

America has failed to properly fight terrorism, said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, so it “has spread, gaining countless new adherents.”

Others said fundamentalism’s demand for religious obedience over individual freedom means “peace is not possible.” Muslims will never embrace Enlightenment ideals like individual freedom and separation of church and state.

But Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, of the group Ideas Beyond Borders, calls that view “ignorant.” He says Middle Eastern young people are moving away from fundamentalism. Surveys do show Middle Eastern youth are becoming less religious and less trusting of religious leaders.

Faisal credits the internet. “Facebook, the social media entry to the Middle East, has been kind of revolutionary.” It introduced young people to American sitcoms. “Friends” and “Seinfeld,” subtitled in Arabic, “show you what good life looks like.”

https://www.johnstossel.com/more-good-news/

After Faisal escaped Iraq and discovered the freedoms of America, he started Ideas Beyond Borders, which translates articles and books about individual rights into Arabic. They also make short videos about these ideas.

His social media following grew quickly. One of his Facebook pages has 3.5 million likes. “People were searching for it,” he says in my newest video because, “This was the first time the ideas of freedom and liberty were available in Arabic.”





Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 12:31:15 pm
I’m gonna call you out as being factually inaccurate here. If you can prove me wrong on this I’ll eat humble pie. If not, you will.

He "liked" those groups...did they influence or agree with him?

And again, he approached several groups about shooting white people...they told him to take a hike. Something you refuse to accept.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 12:38:31 pm
OK, so you admit you misspoke when you said this?

You do realise BLM told him to take a hike when he approached them?

It wasn’t BLM but some other groups? Who didn’t want him because the sexual harassment charge in his history apparently. I don’t think he opened up with, “Hi, I’d like to join your group to kill some white people.” If he did they’d be thinking, “Reject this undercover agent.” (Also, the people in these groups are mostly good and don’t hope for the deaths of others. Hopefully.)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 14, 2021, 12:46:59 pm
And again, he approached several groups about shooting white people...they told him to take a hike. Something you refuse to accept.

They just told him to take a hike ... but didn’t alert the authorities to a potential killer?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 02:16:26 pm
He "liked" those groups...did they influence or agree with him?
Fair point. Do you apply it equally to RWers? We should be consistent on this. If a mass shooter likes a RW cause, that cause should not have to answer for his crimes simply because he "liked" them.

Or are you one of those people who say "This shouldn't be placed at the foot of BLM, but in the case of a RWer, then it's perfectly justifiable to blame them en masse"?

I think no matter what group, it should take more than some "likes" to blame a group or organization.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 02:40:58 pm
Fair point. Do you apply it equally to RWers? We should be consistent on this. If a mass shooter likes a RW cause, that cause should not have to answer for his crimes simply because he "liked" them.

Or are you one of those people who say "This shouldn't be placed at the foot of BLM, but in the case of a RWer, then it's perfectly justifiable to blame them en masse"?

I think no matter what group, it should take more than some "likes" to blame a group or organization.



It would apply to right wingers if they didn't consistently spout white nationalist nazi bullshit.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 14, 2021, 02:45:45 pm
It would apply to right wingers if they didn't consistently spout white nationalist nazi bullshit.
Let me clarify, are you suggesting that the standard we should apply is based on the ideology of the person in question, not the behavior they engage in? Isn't that pretty subjective?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 14, 2021, 02:55:34 pm
How do you separate nazi ideology from nazi behaviour?

How do you separate QAnon ideology from QAnon behaviour?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 14, 2021, 07:40:19 pm
Let me clarify, are you suggesting that the standard we should apply is based on the ideology of the person in question, not the behavior they engage in? Isn't that pretty subjective?
(https://images.theconversation.com/files/376554/original/file-20201223-49872-1h3j4ql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1200&h=675.0&fit=crop)


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 15, 2021, 11:28:19 am
How do you separate nazi ideology from nazi behaviour?

How do you separate QAnon ideology from QAnon behaviour?
First off you dont try to lump everything under the right-wing sun as "Nazi/Q-anon" behavior.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 15, 2021, 12:02:06 pm
Which part(s) of the insurrection weren't due to nazi and/or Q ideology?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 16, 2021, 09:28:46 pm
Proud Boys Intended To Kill Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, FBI Witness Says

An FBI special agent made the claim in an affidavit as part of a criminal complaint against 43-year-old Dominic Pezzola, who is accused of taking part in the riot in support of President Donald Trump's false claims that the presidential election was "stolen."

...

they said that anyone they got their hands on they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi," the affidavit, which was filed Wednesday, reads. "[The witness] further stated that members of this group, which included 'Spaz,' said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance."

...

The group said it would be returning on the '20th,' which your affiant takes to mean the Presidential Inauguration scheduled for January 20, 2021," it continues. "And that they plan to kill every single 'm-fer' they can. [The witness] stated the men said they all had firearms or access to firearms.


https://www.newsweek.com/proud-boys-intended-kill-mike-pence-nancy-pelosi-fbi-witness-says-1562062

Nothing to see here ladies and gentlemen. Just a bunch of locker room talk from a rambunctious group of boys being boys...please understand their unique situation
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 16, 2021, 11:44:46 pm
First off you dont try to lump everything under the right-wing sun as "Nazi/Q-anon" behavior.
Break it down for us then, research assistant. Don't forget to specify which group(s) you belong to in order to eliminate bias.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 17, 2021, 11:20:48 am
On the supply side, media outlets have discovered that dialing up the rhetoric increases clicks, eyeballs, and revenue. On the demand side, readers and viewers like to see their opinions affirmed, rather than challenged.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/conspiracy-theories-will-doom-republican-party/617707/

For anyone who wanted to hear that Trump won, a machine of grifters was turning clicks into cash by telling their audiences what they wanted to hear. The liars got rich, their marks got angry, and things got out of control.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 17, 2021, 10:50:46 pm
Concerning grifting:

"An associate of Rudy Giuliani told a former CIA officer a presidential pardon was “going to cost $2m”, the New York Times reported on Sunday in the latest bombshell to break across the last, chaotic days of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Related: Trumpists on top? President exits having cleaved the Republican party in two

The report detailed widespread and in some cases lucrative lobbying involving people seeking a pardon as Trump’s time in office winds down. The 45th president, impeached twice, will leave power on Wednesday with the inauguration of Joe Biden.

The former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who was jailed in 2012 for leaking the identity of an operative involved in torture, told the Times he laughed at the remark from the associate of Giuliani, the former New York mayor who as Trump’s personal attorney is reportedly a possible pardon recipient himself.

“Two million bucks – are you out of your mind?” Kiriakou reportedly said. “Even if I had two million bucks, I wouldn’t spend it to recover a $700,000 pension.”

An associate of Kiriakou reported the conversation to the FBI, the Times said."

I wonder what Rudy's cut was going to be.  And now that dishonest don is stiffing him, will he join the long line of people and entities suing trump?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 18, 2021, 08:05:04 am
Trump's "law and order" and "fighting corruption" in plain view with his end of term "Pardons-for-Cash" scheme.

Still waiting for the pardons coming for him and his family.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on January 18, 2021, 08:35:08 am
Trump's "law and order" and "fighting corruption" in plain view with his end of term "Pardons-for-Cash" scheme.

Still waiting for the pardons coming for him and his family.
Letting the previous president off seems to be the norm, then again Trump is generally hated enough in Washington that he might prove an exception. That said I think the best we can expect is a token showing (+ maybe they'll slap him with some fines). I doubt anyone's going to be doing prison time.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2021, 01:20:33 pm
they said that anyone they got their hands on they would have killed, including Nancy Pelosi," the affidavit, which was filed Wednesday, reads. "[The witness] further stated that members of this group, which included 'Spaz,' said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance."
Translation: 'Spaz' talked about killing Pence in between bong rips and sips from his 40 oz. of Mickey's.

What's next? A big headline on how some Millwall ultra said he'd kill the other team's captain if he ever got the chance?

Do you seriously take this stuff THAT seriously and shit yourself in fear over it? Are you really THAT easily manipulated?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2021, 01:22:49 pm
Break it down for us then, research assistant. Don't forget to specify which group(s) you belong to in order to eliminate bias.
Each individual group has its own ideology and you need to carefully examine what that is, then you also need to account for the individual beliefs of each person. Finally you need to make sure that people are actually from the group in question and official members.

If you aren't doing that and just going "Deyre all wyte supremasiss..." then you're just being an idiot and not really caring about getting things right, but instead focusing on using it to win arguments and attack people you disagree with.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 18, 2021, 05:06:16 pm
One of the people who invaded the capitol is a guitarist from a well-known metal band.

He was just arrested today. Eleven days later. I wonder where he was hiding.
___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ____

Schaffer was allegedly among rioters who sprayed Capitol police with 'bear spray.'"

https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iced-earths-jon-schaffer-arrested-for-role-in-capitol-riot/

Washington, D.C., police officer Christina Laury said cops were being sprayed with bear mace — a significantly stronger version of pepper spray — as they held the line outside.

"Unfortunately, it shuts you down for a while. It's way worse than pepper spray," she recalled in an interview with CNN.

"It seals your eyes shut. … You've got to spray and douse yourself with water. And in those moments, it's scary because you can't see anything and have people that are fighting to get through."


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 18, 2021, 06:08:28 pm
Gaslighting for dummies:

"It's no big deal. Just a flash mob. They didn't hurt anyone on purpose. They just wanted to hang out with Mike Pence, not hang him. Yawn!"

Sounds familiar...

(https://i.imgur.com/PS0vzBY.jpg)

(https://stockhead.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/nothing-to-see-here.gif)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 18, 2021, 06:55:25 pm
Gaslighting for dummies:
Gaslighting is you trying to convince everyone that the country was in mortal danger and we should be shitting ourselves in fear over this and trying to compare it to the very real revolutions and insurrections that take place in 3rd world countries, rather than this, it's weak and feeble 1st world streaming version.

You do realize that, right? YOU are the one trying to distort this into making it some cataclysmic event.

(https://preview.redd.it/eb4ojnm53s231.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b53ddfc3de9787d7ce69b2bb1be5063057833e39)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 18, 2021, 07:47:48 pm
Translation: 'Spaz' talked about killing Pence in between bong rips and sips from his 40 oz. of Mickey's.

What's next? A big headline on how some Millwall ultra said he'd kill the other team's captain if he ever got the chance?

Do you seriously take this stuff THAT seriously and shit yourself in fear over it? Are you really THAT easily manipulated?

Poor analogy as usual.

Millwall ultra said he'd have killed the other team's captain if said Millwall ultra had seen him when said ultra and his thug friends were breaking into the other team's workplace.

Moreover, said Millwall ultra and his thug friends are part of an ultra violent organisation that has been planning and threatening to invade and cause acts of violence at the other team's premises for weeks...and actually carried out their threats. In fact, up to 5 people died during this siege...but let's not worry, it's just "easy manipulation" when people take your words and matching actions literally.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 19, 2021, 07:32:26 am
He was just arrested today. Eleven days later. I wonder where he was hiding.
___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ___________________ ____

Schaffer was allegedly among rioters who sprayed Capitol police with 'bear spray.'"
https://www.blabbermouth.net/news/iced-earths-jon-schaffer-arrested-for-role-in-capitol-riot/
Washington, D.C., police officer Christina Laury said cops were being sprayed with bear mace — a significantly stronger version of pepper spray — as they held the line outside.
"Unfortunately, it shuts you down for a while. It's way worse than pepper spray," she recalled in an interview with CNN.
"It seals your eyes shut. … You've got to spray and douse yourself with water. And in those moments, it's scary because you can't see anything and have people that are fighting to get through."

Whoever did this interview obviously never grew up in bear country. Bear mace and pepper use the same active ingredient (capsicum concentrate), with the main difference being that bear mace actually has a lower concentration of it, and releases it in a cloud rather than a stream like pepper spray.
You can actually use expired bear mace in campfire cooking (CO2! There's an idea for your next livestream!)
I've used bear spray a number of times, and let me tell you: check the wind direction first.  :cry:

Anyway, the article is dead wrong. Pepper spray is actually a lot worse than bear mace.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 19, 2021, 08:38:37 am
I read stuff like this in the media...
"The crowd sprayed bear mace at the officers, which is far stronger than any other type of mace"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9151297/Capitol-Hill-cops-tasered-BEAR-MACE-beaten-MAGA-mob.html
...and assume it is true.  :sad:
Sorry for posting fake news.  :cry:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 19, 2021, 08:56:00 am
Nah, it's not really the point of the article, and doesn't affect much in this discussion so it's hardly posting fake news.  :laugh:
I just thought I'd point it out because it's something I know about both from reading and from personal experience.
...
...
...
... completely unrelated, and totally hypothetical, but don't ever pepper spray empty elevators, no matter how funny of a prank you think it would be at the time...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 19, 2021, 09:13:10 am
Poor analogy as usual.

Millwall ultra said he'd have killed the other team's captain if said Millwall ultra had seen him when said ultra and his thug friends were breaking into the other team's workplace.

Moreover, said Millwall ultra and his thug friends are part of an ultra violent organisation that has been planning and threatening to invade and cause acts of violence at the other team's premises for weeks...and actually carried out their threats. In fact, up to 5 people died during this siege...but let's not worry, it's just "easy manipulation" when people take your words and matching actions literally.
The point is we have no idea how serious this statement was or what context it was given. Lastly, there are serious doubts about the ability of the Proud Boys to carry this out.

You know for a bunch of people who mock the 2nd Amendment types for claiming guns will pet them stand up to z modern military, the left sire is trying to make it seem like a few hundred guys with guns are a serious threat to the military and police of the country.

Seriously, why are you trying to overhype this? Are you really that afraid or just that desperate to score political points?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 19, 2021, 09:21:54 am
Now I'm reading this:

https://bebearaware.org/deploying-bear-spray

"Pepper spray is NOT bear spray! The active ingredients in bear spray is a derivative of Oleoresin Capsicum called Capsaicin. It is the Capsaicin and related Capsaicinoids that are necessary to deter a charging bear."

"Not all bear sprays are the same in terms of formulation quality, spray duration time, and spray distance."

"Pepper spray is milder than bear spray"

"Bear sprays are more expensive than pepper spray."


Maybe the the Capsaicin and related Capsaicinoids in bear spray are different from the Oleoresin Capsicum in pepper spray?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 19, 2021, 09:28:56 am
Homo sapien thinking: Believing that because something is bigger, it is less sensitive to things and must need a bigger dose, and that the primary effect will be on the eyes, not realizing that for many animals, scent is their dominant sense and they are hyper-sensitive to it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 19, 2021, 09:37:47 am
Seriously, why are you trying to overhype this? Are you really that afraid or just that desperate to score political points?
I agree that it's good to be aware that the media is, as usual, overhyped the event to quite some extent, but I think it might be a good idea to examine the counter-point: why are other people trying to underplay it?

     It was a doomed attempt, and even if they had managed to kill a few politicos, America wouldn't suddenly implode. This seems pretty self evident to me.
On the other hand, it *was* an organized attempt to prevent the transfer of power ( the protesting crowds and storming livestreamers to some small extent, but mostly I mean the individuals who used the crowds as camouflage). At the very least, it's an indication of how deep the current state of political polarization is. Without some serious efforts at remedying this, events such as this are likely to continue, and perhaps escalate.

   The trickle of water running down the side of a dike isn't the issue, the issue is what it signifies: there is something deeply wrong with the dam. Ignoring the leak, down-playing it, or applying cosmetic fixes to it may lead to cataclysmic problems down the line.
   In a lot of ways, I see this situation as being similar to the discovery of the first couple Covid infected people in one's country: decisive action needs to be taken in order to prevent a conflagration. I worry that the new administration will be equally ineffective as the previous in containing this problem because, like Covid, the results of a  precariously unstable American democracy is going to quickly spread beyond its borders. :(


Now I'm reading this:
https://bebearaware.org/deploying-bear-spray
"Pepper spray is NOT bear spray! The active ingredients in bear spray is a derivative of Oleoresin Capsicum called Capsaicin. It is the Capsaicin and related Capsaicinoids that are necessary to deter a charging bear."
"Not all bear sprays are the same in terms of formulation quality, spray duration time, and spray distance."
"Pepper spray is milder than bear spray"
"Bear sprays are more expensive than pepper spray."

Maybe the the Capsaicin and related Capsaicinoids in bear spray are different from the Oleoresin Capsicum in pepper spray?
     I think that part of the problem in these definitions is also that a lot of people conflate Mace with pepper spray.
 Mace is a brand name of pepper spray that used to be made not from peppers but from chlorine derivatives which, aside from being hella painful, was also pretty toxic (which is probably why modern Mace is made with capsiaicins). Also, I think it was an irritant agent rather than an inflammatory one.

    While it's possible that different brands of pepper spray and bear spray might be derived from different species of capsicum and vary on the scoville  scale, the inflammatory reaction that causes blindness and swelling etc is caused by the chemical capsaicin which is the same regardless of what source it's derived from.

  The real difference between the two (aside from intensity) is how it's deployed (ie spray vs stream).

  And Mr.DeMartino is bang on: bears will smell that stuff from a looong way off. In fact, expired bear spray, because it's derived from a fruit and the capsaicin losses its potency over time, will actually attract bears.  :huh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: L I on January 19, 2021, 10:01:57 am
The police officer said she was blinded from bear mace and couldn't she; she said her eyes swelled shut. (That's what she said anyways.) So I'm guessing pretty effective. Maybe it's the reason so many protesters were able to breach the capitol. Why did they bring bear spray rather than pepper spray? (Both are legal to carry everywhere in the United States.)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 19, 2021, 10:08:00 am
Probably just what they had at hand, I guess.
Also, I doubt most people care too much about the difference between the two: hit somebody in the face with either and they're gonna stop doing whatever it is that you're taking issue with lol.

Both are going to stop your average person, but generally speaking, pepper-spray(which is marketed as a human deterrent) is stronger than bear-spray (which is similar but made to -- you guessed it! -- more effectively deter bears).
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on January 20, 2021, 10:25:23 am
"lewrockwell" Hmm, never heard of that site. Let's look it up!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell

"The website features articles... written by right-wing libertarian columnists and writers. Rockwell's site also regularly provides a forum to articles promoting fringe science and conspiracy theories, such as HIV-AIDS denial and the notion that vaccines cause autism. Rockwell has also provoked controversy for his role in and alleged authorship of the racist Ron Paul newsletters in the 1990s..."

Oh.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on January 20, 2021, 01:26:29 pm
Imagine being dumb enough to openly praise a seditious mob while also blaming it on Antifa.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 20, 2021, 02:10:30 pm
Imagine being dumb enough to openly praise a seditious mob while also blaming it on Antifa.
I give MayorHaggar credit here for slowly stepping back from the "INSURRECTIONISTS ATTEMPTING TO TOPPLE THE GOVERNMENT!!!! PANIC!!!!!!!!' take.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 28, 2021, 05:25:41 am
Quote
The US Department of Homeland Security declared a nationwide terrorism alert Wednesday, citing the potential threat from domestic anti-government extremists opposed to Joe Biden as president.

"Information suggests that some ideologically-motivated violent extremists with objections to the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives, could continue to mobilize to incite or commit violence," the department said.

The National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin said a heightened threat of attack "will persist in the weeks following the successful presidential inauguration," which took place on January 20.

"DHS does not have any information to indicate a specific, credible plot," it said.

"However, violent riots have continued in recent days and we remain concerned that individuals frustrated with the exercise of governmental authority and the presidential transition... could continue to mobilize a broad range of ideologically-motivated actors to incite or commit violence."

They're out there., Scully.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 28, 2021, 07:03:18 am
Some-one should tell Mike Pence these 'cosplay rioters' were really just harmless!

Mike Pence is homeless after leaving office and ‘couch-surfing’ with Indiana politicians, report says

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pence-homeless-couch-surfing-indiana-b1793261.html (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pence-homeless-couch-surfing-indiana-b1793261.html)

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 28, 2021, 07:11:35 am
Were the terrorists hapless partying rioters really shouting "where is Mike Pence" and "Hang Mike Pence" during the Capitol raid and coup attempt accidental entry...or were they really saying "where is Mike Pence, hand Mike Pence a friendship medal"?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 28, 2021, 02:51:13 pm
Were the terrorists hapless partying rioters really shouting "where is Mike Pence" and "Hang Mike Pence" during the Capitol raid and coup attempt accidental entry...or were they really saying "where is Mike Pence, hand Mike Pence a friendship medal"?
I also shit myself in fear when I hear football fans scream that they want to kill the other team's QB or the refs. They clearly genuinely mean it and have the means to do so.

Are you really this easy to frighten in real life or is this just an online act?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 28, 2021, 02:57:55 pm
I also shit myself in fear when I hear football fans scream that they want to kill the other team's QB or the refs...as they invade the backstage area, ransacking the place, bludgeoning a police officer to death and get directed to the locations of said QB and refs in hiding


They clearly genuinely mean it and have the means to do so.

Are you really this easy to frighten in real life or is this just an online act?


There, fixed it for ya  :wink:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 28, 2021, 03:57:20 pm
There, fixed it for ya  :wink:
Look, not going to downplay the death of a cop, but there was one single death at the hands of these people, most of whom weren't involved in that part of it.

Seriously dude, do you scare this easy in real life or is this just an internet argument thing? Like were yuo genuinely worried about the U.S government? Do you seriously think that was a real coup attempt?

I don't get why you can't just ridicule the f out of these dumbasses and thugs who did this and leave it at that? Why do you feel this need to try and give it the most dramatic, scary interpretation possible?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 28, 2021, 04:00:08 pm
This whole incident was so bad, my first response was to get on waygook.org and argue with DeMart and Hangook77 about it.

I think you yourself have proved what a fart in the wind this was by your own actions.

Nice going, genius.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 28, 2021, 05:50:13 pm
"not going to..."

*proceeds to do exactly that*
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 28, 2021, 07:41:54 pm
This whole incident was so bad, my first response was to get on waygook.org and argue with DeMart and Hangook77 about it.

I think you yourself have proved what a fart in the wind this was by your own actions.

Nice going, genius.
How many times have you posted that now? How many more times will you post it? All part of your big lie strategy,, Herr Goebbels?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 29, 2021, 10:45:02 am
How many times have you posted that now? How many more times will you post it? All part of your big lie strategy,, Herr Goebbels?
It's not a lie. It's 100% true and it exposes the flimsiness of your position. You have no answer for it. You guys walked yourselves into it.

Next time you want to get hysterical and spread fear, make sure your actions match your words.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 29, 2021, 02:00:53 pm
Lol, they're already trying to blame the Gamestop thing on Trump and Neo-Nazis. They're hoping that gullible saps like you guys will lap it up and turn on the people sticking it to the hedge funds and investors that own these media companies and buy the politicians that support them.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/gamestop-stock-surge-trumpism/index.html
https://twitter.com/NateWeixel/status/1354472248283967498

Maybe this will finally wake you up to what dupes you all have been because of the media and them blurting out "TRUMP!!!!" and "WHITE SUPREMACISTS!!!!!" You guys are like Pavlov's dog. Throw those things out and you just lap it up without question.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 29, 2021, 07:27:00 pm
Unfortunately for you, progressives in Congress have:

*voiced their support for the redditors
*called out actual trumpists trying to ride the bandwagon

Try harder.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 29, 2021, 08:07:57 pm
It's not a lie. It's 100% true and it exposes the flimsiness of your position. You have no answer for it. You guys walked yourselves into it.

Next time you want to get hysterical and spread fear, make sure your actions match your words.

Choo choo!!! The Trump train has left the station and one passenger won't disembark.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 29, 2021, 08:39:01 pm
It's not a lie. It's 100% true and it exposes the flimsiness of your position. You have no answer for it. You guys walked yourselves into it.

Next time you want to get hysterical and spread fear, make sure your actions match your words.
"100% true." What nonsense. Hyperbole to support a lie.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on January 30, 2021, 05:48:16 am
Lol, they're already trying to blame the Gamestop thing on Trump and Neo-Nazis. They're hoping that gullible saps like you guys will lap it up and turn on the people sticking it to the hedge funds and investors that own these media companies and buy the politicians that support them.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/gamestop-stock-surge-trumpism/index.html
https://twitter.com/NateWeixel/status/1354472248283967498
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ElegantCautiousGalapagoshawk-size_restricted.gif)

Maybe this will finally wake you up to what dupes you all have been because of the media and them blurting out "TRUMP!!!!" and "WHITE SUPREMACISTS!!!!!" You guys are like Pavlov's dog. Throw those things out and you just lap it up without question.


It's great that you included a link for one of your QAnon type rants. It would be even better if your link provided any support for your batsh*t craziness! :laugh:
But seriously, I suggest you get in contact with these guys.
(https://seoulcounseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/SCC_interior_190529_006.jpg)
https://seoulcounseling.com/ (https://seoulcounseling.com/)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 30, 2021, 08:04:57 am
Unfortunately for you, progressives in Congress have:

*voiced their support for the redditors
*called out actual trumpists trying to ride the bandwagon

Try harder.
Then why do you think the MSM is going down that route? Why is Bloomberg trashing them?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on January 30, 2021, 08:06:59 am
It's great that you included a link for one of your QAnon type rants. It would be even better if your link provided any support for your batsh*t craziness! :laugh:
Biden's Treasury Sec received 800k in speaking fees from one of the hedge funds.

But you care more about me.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on January 30, 2021, 10:11:41 am
Then why do you think the MSM is going down that route? Why is Bloomberg trashing them?

You're really asking why a media company owned and funded by a billionaire stock trader is trashing a group of regular people coming together to bankrupt multi billion dollar hedge funds?

Like...you're actually asking that question? ? ? ?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on January 30, 2021, 11:59:14 am
Poor Marty can't use his analytical skills to work out why billionaire hedge funds don't like losing "easy" money for them.

No-one's blaming the whole Gamestop thing on Trump or Neo-Nazis; no-one is using that narrative but you.

Why are you alarmed that us anti-Trump folk aren't blaming him for this? Is your mind that f@cked up?

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on January 30, 2021, 07:36:05 pm
Biden's Treasury Sec received 800k in speaking fees from one of the hedge funds.

It's called capitalism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 01, 2021, 10:59:51 am
You're really asking why a media company owned and funded by a billionaire stock trader is trashing a group of regular people coming together to bankrupt multi billion dollar hedge funds?

Like...you're actually asking that question? ? ? ?
The same media that you guys lapped up everything they pushed about Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 01, 2021, 11:06:16 am
Poor Marty can't use his analytical skills to work out why billionaire hedge funds don't like losing "easy" money for them.

No-one's blaming the whole Gamestop thing on Trump or Neo-Nazis; no-one is using that narrative but you.

Why are you alarmed that us anti-Trump folk aren't blaming him for this? Is your mind that f@cked up?


I literally post an article and verified tweet where they do that and you say it's only me.

They put out feelers to see if they could use the same smears but there was no traction so they moved on to a different angle. It's called A-B testing.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 01, 2021, 02:53:24 pm
"100% true." What nonsense. Hyperbole to support a lie.
It's 100% true your response to the Capitol riots was to get on here and argue with me.

You can't undo it.

Next time, if you're going to scream the sky is falling, make sure your actions line up with what you claim.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 02, 2021, 12:44:22 am
It's 100% true your response to the Capitol riots was to get on here and argue with me.

You can't undo it.

Next time, if you're going to scream the sky is falling, make sure your actions line up with what you claim.
1. I'm not arguing with you. That's a fool's errand. I'm pointing out your disinformation and lies.
2. Your hyperbole is as predictable as it is pathetic.
3. As for my response. I've done more than just shut down your lies here.
4. What have you EVER done about anything?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 04, 2021, 09:08:37 pm
Where's the outrage about an unarmed woman at the protest being killed? The police officer who shot her is not being charged with any crime and his identity has been concealed.

"Both died at the hands of police and both symbolise a cause, but US patriot Ashli Babbitt is branded a 'domestic terrorist' after her death, while George Floyd became a martyr to millions and was buried in a gold-plated casket."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/511931-ashli-babbitt-george-floyd-deaths/
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 04, 2021, 09:24:09 pm
Each case should be judged on individual circumstances, irrespective of the popular causes at the time. The races of victims and protagonists should either not be mentioned by the media or reported conistently across the board
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 04, 2021, 09:37:27 pm
Where's the outrage about an unarmed woman at the protest being killed? The police officer who shot her is not being charged with any crime and his identity has been concealed.

"Both died at the hands of police and both symbolise a cause, but US patriot Ashli Babbitt is branded a 'domestic terrorist' after her death, while George Floyd became a martyr to millions and was buried in a gold-plated casket."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/511931-ashli-babbitt-george-floyd-deaths/
She's not a patriot.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 04, 2021, 09:50:49 pm
Where's the outrage about an unarmed woman at the protest being killed? The police officer who shot her is not being charged with any crime and his identity has been concealed.

"Both died at the hands of police and both symbolise a cause, but US patriot Ashli Babbitt is branded a 'domestic terrorist' after her death, while George Floyd became a martyr to millions and was buried in a gold-plated casket."
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/511931-ashli-babbitt-george-floyd-deaths/

Whereas, her casket, should be wrapped in a QAnon flag.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 05, 2021, 03:56:41 am
She's not a patriot.

"unarmed woman at the protest"

Hahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha

If only she didn't play stupid games by trying to attack police officers and elected officials.

Where are the community leaders? The parents? Why can't they teach personal responsibility? This white on white crime stuff is just terrible. I mean, when 86% of white murder victims are killed by other whites, the officer just couldn't take any chances...especiall y with the proliferation of guns, drugs and terrorist propaganda within the white community. Besides, we should wait for all the facts before passing judgement. Have her toxicology report and criminal history been released yet?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: thunderlips on February 05, 2021, 07:34:19 am
"unarmed woman at the protest"

Hahahahahahahahahah ahahahahaha

If only she didn't play stupid games by trying to attack police officers and elected officials.

Where are the community leaders? The parents? Why can't they teach personal responsibility? This white on white crime stuff is just terrible. I mean, when 86% of white murder victims are killed by other whites, the officer just couldn't take any chances...especiall y with the proliferation of guns, drugs and terrorist propaganda within the white community. Besides, we should wait for all the facts before passing judgement. Have her toxicology report and criminal history been released yet?

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/l4q8cJzGdR9J8w3hS/200w.webp?cid=ecf05e47rz4qn6if009usnrf6gx4q1evxsky7vl7um869o9t&rid=200w.webp)

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 05, 2021, 08:31:08 am
Well of course I 100% blame the patriarchy and systemic misogyny. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. In fact the US was built on the oppression of females who have historically been underprivilged in all areas of life. They do the worst jobs they get the lowest pay, they suffer the most violence at the hands of men. They only got the vote 100 years ago. It's no wonder that poverty and systemic oppression lead some of them to turn to crime. Home life, parenting and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 05, 2021, 09:21:53 am
Well of course I 100% blame the patriarchy and systemic misogyny. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. In fact the US was built on the oppression of females who have historically been underprivilged in all areas of life. They do the worst jobs they get the lowest pay, they suffer the most violence at the hands of men. They only got the vote 100 years ago. It's no wonder that poverty and systemic oppression lead some of them to turn to crime. Home life, parenting and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it.

Odd, isn't it?  Conservatives are just never funny, they don't "get" how humor works, somehow. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 05, 2021, 09:32:40 am
Well of course I 100% blame the patriarchy and systemic misogyny. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. In fact the US was built on the oppression of females who have historically been underprivilged in all areas of life. They do the worst jobs they get the lowest pay, they suffer the most violence at the hands of men. They only got the vote 100 years ago. It's no wonder that poverty and systemic oppression lead some of them to turn to crime. Home life, parenting and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it.

Please understand her unique situation...she was only fighting against the patriarchy by fighting on behalf of a president who grabs women by their pussies and a political party that uses religious doctrine to take away women's  reproductive rights.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 05, 2021, 10:13:25 am
Quote
Quote from: stoat on Today at 08:31:08 am
Well of course I 100% blame the patriarchy and systemic misogyny. Women have been oppressed by men for thousands of years. In fact the US was built on the oppression of females who have historically been underprivilged in all areas of life. They do the worst jobs they get the lowest pay, they suffer the most violence at the hands of men. They only got the vote 100 years ago. It's no wonder that poverty and systemic oppression lead some of them to turn to crime. Home life, parenting and personal responsibility have nothing to do with it.

Please understand her unique situation...she was only fighting against the patriarchy by fighting on behalf of a president who grabs women by their pussies and a political party that uses religious doctrine to take away women's  reproductive rights

Interesting, so do you think if George Floyd had turned out to be a rapid Trump supporter, BLM would have disowned him? Or put another way, if Ashli Babbit had been a POC, would BLM be showing an interest? I guess they would be since they're apparently not a political movement.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 05, 2021, 10:49:08 am
One was a terrorist literally killed in the act of trying to harm (some might argue assassinate) elected officials and police...the other was a convicted felon who had repaid his debt to society, and was slowly tortured to death for allegedly using fake money.

Pick your battles wisely.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 11:33:40 am
More's the point, if duck's had one leg they would surely swim in circles, would they not?


(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ThankfulCleanAlligatorgar-max-1mb.gif)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 05, 2021, 11:47:32 am
You can say both her and Floyd made bad decisions that led to tragic outcomes or that both were unarmed victims of bad policing but going "but but but..." for one or the other just shows political bias.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 05, 2021, 11:50:51 am
She was killed for trying to break through a barricade.

But there was much more outrage over Trump's tweet about shooting looters.


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 11:55:20 am
You can say both her and Floyd made bad decisions that led to tragic outcomes or that both were unarmed victims of bad policing but going "but but but..." for one or the other just shows political bias.
Sounds like a rather linear argument completely lacking in nuance.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 05, 2021, 11:57:35 am
Sounds like a rather linear argument completely lacking in nuance.
Actually, the nuance is in being able to grasp the potential framing for both side of the argument in both directions. It says that in both directions there are points to be made, however you have to be consistent. You can't apply one set of standards because you support the politics of one side and then dump the standards for the other. We all do it, but it's important for us to try and limit and reduce that impulse.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 11:58:09 am
She was killed for trying to break through a barricade.

But there was much more outrage over Trump's tweet about shooting looters.





The location of the barricade here is critical, not to mention there were guns drawn before she attempted to breach said barricade.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 05, 2021, 11:59:20 am

The location of the barricade here is critical, not to mention there were guns drawn before attempted to breach said barricade.
If "Trump's goons" had shot an unarmed protestor attempting to burst through a barricade around the White House, what would your reaction have been?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 12:04:25 pm
If "Trump's goons" had shot an unarmed protestor attempting to burst through a barricade around the White House, what would your reaction have been?

I believe I've already responded to this ridiculous hypothetical Marti. Perhaps you'd like to flick back a few pages of this same thread to reveal it. I'd quote it myself but frankly engaging in your bullsh*t tomfoolery is growing tiresome!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 05, 2021, 01:54:34 pm
I believe I've already responded to this ridiculous hypothetical Marti. Perhaps you'd like to flick back a few pages of this same thread to reveal it. I'd quote it myself but frankly engaging in your bullsh*t tomfoolery is growing tiresome!

I don't see anything resembling a cogent response.

Just admit that your standard for whether someone should be shot is "I like them vs. I don't like them."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 02:41:59 pm
Quote
Quote from: stoat on January 09, 2021, 10:27:50 am
Fine but be consistent though. Next time an unarmed black person gets shot by the police for ignoring instructions/breaking the law/posing a physical threat , come down in the police's side.
]

Ok dude. Next time I hear about an African Americans shot as they video themselves breaking into and rioting in the Capitol building while ignoring the direction of armed people officers I'll be sure to post my support for the rule of law right here!  :laugh:

Honestly, I wonder why I bother tutoring you with your literacy issues Marti! You're seldom grateful.

Working on any more works of fiction ?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 05, 2021, 02:53:43 pm
]

Honestly, I wonder why I bother tutoring you with your literacy issues Marti! You're seldom grateful.

Working on any more works of fiction ?
But that wasn't the same issue. This wasn't about race. This was about protesters at the White House. What if one of them had burst through a barrier and was unarmed. Would you say "Fine, rule of law"

No you wouldn't. Stop pretending otherwise. You'd be on here screaming about Trump's thugs. The fact that you can't even admit your bias is what's bothering. Just be like "Yeah, I'd probably have a different take. That's what we all do." Maybe recognize that you should apply the same standard you'd apply to that situation to the capital incident.

For the record, I generally think NOT shooting is a good step. Either that or just mow EVERYONE down. This half-assed shit just leads to this situation. I think the Capital Police did a good job. All in all, we got a pretty good outcome. It could have been a lot worse either way. In other countries these kinds of incidents tend to end with someone getting Ghadaffied OR with the police mowing down 75 people. People are critical, but I think they did a pretty good job. Let them run around and take their stupid selfies. If any of them draw guns and try to shoot someone, put em down but recognize the difference between Horn and Spear guy taking a selfie vs. Camo guy with AR-15 trying to break down a door.

You just lump them all together and declare them the worst. No nuance. No consideration. Just "I hate you, so you deserve the worst in life."

Such primitive, juvenile thinking.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 05, 2021, 03:10:46 pm
But that wasn't the same issue. This wasn't about race. This was about protesters at the White House. What if one of them had burst through a barrier and was unarmed. Would you say "Fine, rule of law"

No you wouldn't. Stop pretending otherwise.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Were does one begin ?
Sorry Marti, I've just bought a new runabout suitable for going a reasonable distance offshore and I'm far more interested in organising my fishing trip this weekend.
Fare thee well!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on February 05, 2021, 03:11:41 pm
they did a fine job considering they were wildly unprepared. had they been more prepared they wouldn't have had to barricade doors and shoot that poor woman. they absolutely should not have been able to run around and there is definitely room for something between "security here is a joke" and "mow everyone down"... i mean talk about half-assing it
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 07, 2021, 05:54:15 am
Hmm it's Super Bowl Sunday and we're still talking about the fact that Republicans assaulted the Capitol and tried to assassinate multiple members of congress and their VP.

Hmmmm.

Inb4 "I never said..." or "what I meant was..."

(https://i.imgur.com/bjCv0FX.jpg)

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 07, 2021, 07:07:27 am
Imagine being a lying snowflake and an enemy of free speech.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 07, 2021, 10:23:23 am
Hmm it's Super Bowl Sunday and we're still talking about the fact that Republicans assaulted the Capitol and tried to assassinate multiple members of congress and their VP.

Hmmmm.

Inb4 "I never said..." or "what I meant was..."

(https://i.imgur.com/bjCv0FX.jpg)


I already called being wrong a few pages ago.

It's not that hard.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 08, 2021, 02:14:08 am
Imagine being a lying snowflake and an enemy of free speech.

(https://i.imgflip.com/41vcdn.gif)


Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 08, 2021, 06:46:56 am
Talking of snowflakes, what was that about Democratic politicians in tears in congress over the terrible ordeal they might have nearly experienced in the Capitol  :smiley:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 08, 2021, 08:24:44 am
Talking of snowflakes, what was that about Democratic politicians in tears in congress over the terrible ordeal they might have nearly experienced in the Capitol  :smiley:

So now your problem isn't that a conservative mob wanted to assassinate congressmen and the VP, but that they failed to do so.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 08, 2021, 08:25:25 am
Imagine being a lying snowflake and an enemy of free speech.


You tell us, because you just decribed yourself to a T, mister white supremacist.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 08, 2021, 10:15:09 am
So now your problem isn't that a conservative mob wanted to assassinate congressmen and the VP, but that they failed to do so.
Seems like most of them did not want to do that.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 08, 2021, 10:24:22 am
So now your problem isn't that a conservative mob wanted to assassinate congressmen and the VP, but that they failed to do so.

Just amused by the sheer narcissism of some politicians
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 08, 2021, 05:39:34 pm
Seems like most of them did not want to do that.

"The cop-killing mob wasn't chanting that they wanted to hang Mike Pence, they were chanting that they wanted to hang out with Mike Pence! Stupid liberals, it's like you don't even understand words! Duh!"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 08, 2021, 05:57:17 pm
I could've sworn they were chanting they wanted to hang a picture of Mike Pence...on the wall
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 08, 2021, 06:12:20 pm
"The cop-killing mob wasn't chanting that they wanted to hang Mike Pence, they were chanting that they wanted to hang out with Mike Pence! Stupid liberals, it's like you don't even understand words! Duh!"
Yeah, they genuinely meant it. Just like people beheading Trump effigies.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 09, 2021, 06:13:39 am
Yeah, they genuinely meant it.
Just joshing ah ?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ILE6DnRJXU0/hqdefault.jpg)

Nah, you're right Marti.  Ain't no murderous intent on display here at all!

Quick Marti ! Time for another distraction.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 01:48:38 pm
Just joshing ah ?
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ILE6DnRJXU0/hqdefault.jpg)

Nah, you're right Marti.  Ain't no murderous intent on display here at all!

Quick Marti ! Time for another distraction.

Might want to hit the pause button there. Since you are part of the "believe science" crowd, and the science is saying CoD is undetermined and blunt force trauma was NOT the cause, then maybe you need to step back.

Quote
In Sicknick's case, it's still not known publicly what caused him to collapse the night of the insurrection. Findings from a medical examiner's review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process.
According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true.
One possibility being considered by investigators is that Sicknick became ill after interacting with a chemical irritant like pepper spray or bear spray that was deployed in the crowd. But investigators reviewing video of the officer's time around the Capitol haven't been able to confirm that in tape that has been recovered so far, the official said.
The case could also be complicated if Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition. It could not be learned if he did.
A spokeswoman for the US Capitol Police declined to comment for this story citing the ongoing investigation.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 09, 2021, 02:03:41 pm
Might want to hit the pause button there. Since you are part of the "believe science" crowd, and the science is saying CoD is undetermined and blunt force trauma was NOT the cause, then maybe you need to step back.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/02/politics/brian-sicknick-charges/index.html

Quote
In court documents, FBI agents have laid out elements of the attacks faced by officers in alarming detail. More than 100 police officers were injured in the melee, including at least 15 officers who required hospitalization, according to court documents. One man can be seen in surveillance video striking uniformed officers from the Capitol Police and the DC's Metropolitan Police Department with a metal baseball bat, according to an FBI affidavit.


You're so right Marti. That link to CNN totally vindicates your argument that these guys where just doing some harmless cosplay didn't really mean it when chanting 'hang Mike Pence'!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 02:24:02 pm
You're so right Marti. That link to CNN totally vindicates your argument that these guys where just doing some harmless cosplay didn't really mean it when chanting 'hang Mike Pence'!  :laugh:
Yes, someone thought they'd be able to get close enough to the Vice President in order to kill him with a metal baseball bat.

The fact that you think this supports your case and damages mine is laughable.

Seriously, I keep on saying this- You could have just gone with ridicule and mockery of them. Instead you tried to take the most extreme interpretation of what happened. One that defied common sense. One you would never claim if this was a different country and you had no idea what the political leanings of the people were. Instead you got your dander up and went all meltdown.

It's a lot easier to step up from funny to serious than it is to step down from serious to funny. Next time, go with funny first and wait until the dust settles.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 09, 2021, 02:36:45 pm
Yes, someone thought they'd be able to get close enough to the Vice President in order to kill him with a metal baseball bat.

The fact that you think this supports your case and damages mine is laughable.

Seriously, I keep on saying this-


You do keep saying a lot of bullsh*t Marti but other than hangjook77 & TRex who believe in  QAnon type conspiracies, who do you honestly think you're convincing?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 09, 2021, 02:38:51 pm
Yes, someone thought they'd be able to get close enough to the Vice President in order to kill him with a metal baseball bat.

The fact that you think this supports your case and damages mine is laughable.

Seriously, I keep on saying this- You could have just gone with ridicule and mockery of them. Instead you tried to take the most extreme interpretation of what happened. One that defied common sense. One you would never claim if this was a different country and you had no idea what the political leanings of the people were. Instead you got your dander up and went all meltdown.

It's a lot easier to step up from funny to serious than it is to step down from serious to funny. Next time, go with funny first and wait until the dust settles.

The Super Bowl is over.  This topic has faded from our consciousness.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 03:20:35 pm
The Super Bowl is over.  This topic has faded from our consciousness.
Seems like it has for many. Just us arguing in circles while everyone else is tired of people arguing about Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 03:26:12 pm
You do keep saying a lot of bullsh*t Marti but other than hangjook77 & TRex who believe in  QAnon type conspiracies, who do you honestly think you're convincing?  :laugh:
You're the one who managed to convince yourself that a guy with a baseball bat and a guy in a yak hat and carrying a spear were part of a serious coup attempt and insurrection.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 09, 2021, 03:44:42 pm
You're the one who managed to convince yourself that a guy with a baseball bat and a guy in a yak hat and carrying a spear were part of a serious coup attempt and insurrection.

You're so right Marti! It was just a couple of guys. The rest of it is all hyperbole stirred up by Trump haters and the fake news media!  :laugh: I'm so glad you've been able to convince yourself of that!
Why is it then that Liz Cheney and other Republicans who understand conservative ideology like protecting the rule of law and voted to impeach Trump, were not so convinced?
Why aren't they going down this path?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtBhOOHTUpc

Who the hell gives a toss about honest Abe these days? It's all about the dear leader. They need a name change like the TBTP (Total Bullshit Trump Party).
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 04:54:08 pm
You're so right Marti! It was just a couple of guys. The rest of it is all hyperbole stirred up by Trump haters and the fake news media!  :laugh: I'm so glad you've been able to convince yourself of that!
Why is it then that Liz Cheney and other Republicans who understand conservative ideology like protecting the rule of law and voted to impeach Trump, were not so convinced?
Why aren't they doing they going down this path?
Yes, they don't like Trump for political reasons and think he's unfit.

That still doesn't address the fact that you and some others have managed to convince youself that some guys with baseball bats and bear mace who promptly ran around taking selfies and doing livestreams represented a serious organized coup attempt.

FFS, you talk about Trumpers being delusional and easily duped and buying crap theories- Take a look in the mirror at yourself on this one. Again, you could have made fun of them as a sort of Idiot's Whiskey Rebellion, instead you decided to go serious and dramatic. Stupid. STOP TRYING TO ALWAYS GO FOR THE WORST EXPLANATION POSSIBLE.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 09, 2021, 06:52:58 pm


Yeah you're so right.  Why can't we just pretend that nothing significant happened on Jan 6th and this was just some ordinary patriotic folk taking an opportunity to engage in normal political activity that should be respected and encouraged when a particular group is unhappy with the outcome of an election. 
1. That's not what I said
2. Just because something may be of some degree of significance does not justify an OVERreaction.
3. Getting a prediction to some degree wrong does not make someone a "lying fwit" (Yes, it clearly hasn't been forgotten BUT a number of people have either moved on or don't care. Again, look who is all worked up about this- Most of the people on this site have already moved on and don't care)

"The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl"
Bucs win Super Bowl
"You're a Lying Fwit for saying that!"

That's not the reaction you should have. You could certainly mock me for being WRONG but it is not a LIE.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 10, 2021, 02:51:50 am
1. That's not what I said
2. Just because something may be of some degree of significance does not justify an OVERreaction.
3. Getting a prediction to some degree wrong does not make someone a "lying fwit" (Yes, it clearly hasn't been forgotten BUT a number of people have either moved on or don't care. Again, look who is all worked up about this- Most of the people on this site have already moved on and don't care)

"The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl"
Bucs win Super Bowl
"You're a Lying Fwit for saying that!"

That's not the reaction you should have. You could certainly mock me for being WRONG but it is not a LIE.
Just because they've decided to ignore your posts doesn't mean they don't care.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 10, 2021, 04:54:47 pm
Just because they've decided to ignore your posts doesn't mean they don't care.
Dude, no one cares. If they cared, they'd talk about it. They don't need me to start topics. Face it: Not everyone is into politics. And even many of those who are somewhat into politics have moved on.

Donald Trump's alleged insurrection had ZERO effect on your life. Why are you so wrapped up about it? If this truly was some big, bad event it would be like 9/11. Not something where your first reaction was to log onto waygook.org
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 10, 2021, 06:03:18 pm
The Super Bowl is over.  This topic has faded from our consciousness.

You're so right. I've totally forgotten about how conservatives have become seditious terrorists. All I can think about is how good Tom Brady is at throwing a ball, rather than about the fact that Martin is still making excuses for a murderous mob of would-be assassins who got a bunch of people killed and directly assaulted democracy itself.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 10, 2021, 11:45:23 pm
Dude, no one cares. If they cared, they'd talk about it. They don't need me to start topics. Face it: Not everyone is into politics. And even many of those who are somewhat into politics have moved on.

Donald Trump's alleged insurrection had ZERO effect on your life. Why are you so wrapped up about it? If this truly was some big, bad event it would be like 9/11. Not something where your first reaction was to log onto waygook.org
How many people do you think tuned in to watch or listen to the impeachment hearing yesterday, dude? People care.

" Fox News, the favorite among Trump and other Republicans, had the single biggest audience during the daytime hearings. It averaged 2.9 million viewers at any given time between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on Wednesday, according to Nielsen (NLSN) TV ratings.

MSNBC, the favorite among Democrats, was closely behind. MSNBC averaged 2.7 million viewers during the hearings.

On a typical day, Fox News has about 1.5 million viewers during the daytime hours, and MSNBC has closer to 1 million, so viewing levels were certainly elevated due to the impeachment hearings.

The ratings contradict claims from some of the president’s allies, including one of his sons, Eric Trump, who said on Fox News that “no one was watching it. No one cares.”

My first reaction was not to log into waygook. Stop with the lying, if that's possible for you.

As a citizen of the US, it did and does have an effect on my life.  Just because the effect is not a direct, material one does not mean it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 11, 2021, 04:08:33 am
Yeah, they genuinely meant it.

Quote
(https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/santos-smith-bancroft-pelosi.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=618&h=410&crop=1) 
“We got inside, we did our part.We were looking for Nancy [Pelosi] to shoot her in the friggin’ brain but we didn’t find her,” Bancroft said in the footage, according to court documents.
https://www.newsandguts.com/link/daily-beast-feds-track-down-bearded-proud-boy-seen-smashing-capitol-window-with-police-shield/ (https://www.newsandguts.com/link/daily-beast-feds-track-down-bearded-proud-boy-seen-smashing-capitol-window-with-police-shield/)



Quote
BREAKING—The window-breacher of the Capitol siege has been arrested—a Proudboy member named Dominic ‘Spazzo’ Pezzola. He has been sought by FBI for a long time—FBI say his group had stated that they “would have killed Mike Pence if given the chance”.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/30/accused-capitol-rioter-said-she-wanted-to-shoot-nancy-pelosi/

Yeah we know Marti, they were not serious! They was just joshing and, like you say, nothing really significant happened on Jan 6th. This was just some ordinary patriotic folk taking an opportunity to engage in normal political activity that should be respected and encouraged when a particular group is unhappy with the outcome of an election. Like you say, they was just expressing their free speech. We should just forget about it. Nobody cares, right.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEknfe94r2U


What did you say you did for a living?  :laugh:



Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 14, 2021, 10:06:41 am
Trump is having the last laugh. Dems are pissed.

But I think the right decision was made. An ordinary court of law would have viewed Trump's words on that day as protected free speech.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 14, 2021, 10:40:47 am
Quote
Trump is having the last laugh. Dems are pissed.

But I think the right decision was made. An ordinary court of law would have viewed Trump's words on that day as protected free speech.
 

 Seven Republicans voted to convict him. This ain't over yet.

Quote
"Former President Trump's actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty, Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one, ..... He didn't get away with anything yet "  Mitch McConnel February 13, 2021


Not a strong defence from one of those who voted against conviction! It's the end of the beginning for Trump in terms of his legal jeopardy. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 14, 2021, 11:08:04 am
Found guilty by a bipartisan majority of Senators. 43 Republicans are out looking for a spine.

This impeachment trial was a fine example of why it is necessary to finally get rid of the filibuster as Republicans threatened to filibuster ALL Senate business if witnesses were brought forward.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 14, 2021, 11:38:31 am
My first reaction was not to log into waygook. Stop with the lying, if that's possible for you.

As a citizen of the US, it did and does have an effect on my life.  Just because the effect is not a direct, material one does not mean it doesn't exist.
Do you think that's how coups work in countries that REALLY have coups? "Let me take time out from all the couping to log onto some site to argue with random people?"

No, they're too busy trying to make sure their money, property, and lives are safe. They are making sure their loved ones stay off the streets because the troops or the opposition might start shooting randomly. They aren't binging Netflix and tweeting about it.

And no, it hasn't affected you in any way. Turn off the f*ing outrage media and go live life. You'll see how massively irrelevant that event was and how much of it is just people trying to gin it up and make you angry so they can get money and ratings from you.

Seriously, you call Trumpers cultists and gullible idiots, but do you not see how your own Trump hate is being used in the same way?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 14, 2021, 11:43:01 am

Yeah we know Marti, they were not serious! They was just joshing and, like you say, nothing really significant happened on Jan 6th.
No one said they're just joshing. They were clearly rioting. But coup and insurrection? Seriously, stop trying to take everything to its most extreme logical conclusion.

If you think this was a serious coordinated coup attempt, then all the perpetrators are not mentally competent to stand trial and not guilty by reason of mental defect.

You can't claim this was a serious coup attempt and then have the perpetrators taking selfies and wearing yak hats and holding spears.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 14, 2021, 11:43:48 am
Found guilty by a bipartisan majority of Senators. 43 Republicans are out looking for a spine.

This impeachment trial was a fine example of why it is necessary to finally get rid of the filibuster as Republicans threatened to filibuster ALL Senate business if witnesses were brought forward.
Yeah, getting rid of the filibuster worked out real well for the Dems when it came to SCOTUS.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: chimp on February 14, 2021, 01:33:27 pm
While waiting for this hangover to clear...

It's an histrionic over-reaction to call what happened an attempted coup. It was a rabble of idiots that got out of hand and somewhat egged-on by Trump with his lack of grace in defeat. By all means prosecute the people involved because these antics aren't on.

The real damage was already done with regards of low levels of trust in institutions and political processes. In 2016 the dems threw a huge wobbly with regards to Russians and Trump being Putin's man, now it's the Republicans playing up.

From what I can tell this mistrust isn't going away any time soon and it's hard to see how trust is going to be rebuilt. Perhaps our real hope is that the "Center"/"Moderates" get over the smug complacency that took hold in the happy post-Cold War days and start paying attention to the pain a lot of people are going through out there. Once they get their shit together they can pull the rug from under the seriously delusional right wing on the one hand, and the hysterical PC left on the other.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 14, 2021, 02:33:09 pm

You can't claim this was a serious coup attempt and then have the perpetrators taking selfies and wearing yak hats and holding spears.

Dude, the only person I recall that was making claims about cues on this thread was yourself in relation the legitimate actions of the Legislature exercising its proper functioning whilst exercising oversight of the Executive. According to yourself this proper functioning of a Federal constitutional system of governance exercising checks and balances over Executive power was labelled a cue!
Do provide actual quotes if you wish to correct me though. Your accusation here have even less credibility than Giuliani on a bad hair day.  :laugh: 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 14, 2021, 02:53:04 pm
Yeah, getting rid of the filibuster worked out real well for the Dems when it came to SCOTUS.

Elections have consequences. It’s not needed as is the “hold” that any Senator can place on a nominee.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 15, 2021, 02:23:26 am
Trump is having the last laugh. Dems are pissed.

But I think the right decision was made. An ordinary court of law would have viewed Trump's words on that day as protected free speech.
LOL.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 15, 2021, 02:27:59 am
Do you think that's how coups work in countries that REALLY have coups? "Let me take time out from all the couping to log onto some site to argue with random people?"

No, they're too busy trying to make sure their money, property, and lives are safe. They are making sure their loved ones stay off the streets because the troops or the opposition might start shooting randomly. They aren't binging Netflix and tweeting about it.

And no, it hasn't affected you in any way. Turn off the f*ing outrage media and go live life. You'll see how massively irrelevant that event was and how much of it is just people trying to gin it up and make you angry so they can get money and ratings from you.

Seriously, you call Trumpers cultists and gullible idiots, but do you not see how your own Trump hate is being used in the same way?
Buddy, you haven't got a clue. I don't know who you, in your fever dreams are describing, but it sure isn't me.

As for getting a life, why don't you stop telling strangers what to do and think and get one of your own. But before you're on the way to doing that, stop drinking and driving.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 15, 2021, 02:32:03 am
While waiting for this hangover to clear...

It's an histrionic over-reaction to call what happened an attempted coup. It was a rabble of idiots that got out of hand and somewhat egged-on by Trump with his lack of grace in defeat. By all means prosecute the people involved because these antics aren't on.

The real damage was already done with regards of low levels of trust in institutions and political processes. In 2016 the dems threw a huge wobbly with regards to Russians and Trump being Putin's man, now it's the Republicans playing up.

From what I can tell this mistrust isn't going away any time soon and it's hard to see how trust is going to be rebuilt. Perhaps our real hope is that the "Center"/"Moderates" get over the smug complacency that took hold in the happy post-Cold War days and start paying attention to the pain a lot of people are going through out there. Once they get their shit together they can pull the rug from under the seriously delusional right wing on the one hand, and the hysterical PC left on the other.
This was organized over a period of months. That it may have been poorly organized--they did however get into the Capitol and stop the election certification process, at least temporarily--doesn't it make any less of an attempted coup.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 15, 2021, 02:33:05 am
Dude, the only person I recall that was making claims about cues on this thread was yourself in relation the legitimate actions of the Legislature exercising its proper functioning whilst exercising oversight of the Executive. According to yourself this proper functioning of a Federal constitutional system of governance exercising checks and balances over Executive power was labelled a cue!
Do provide actual quotes if you wish to correct me though. Your accusation here have even less credibility than Giuliani on a bad hair day.  :laugh: 
And after three double scotches.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 15, 2021, 05:47:25 am
 

 Seven Republicans voted to convict him. This ain't over yet.
 

Not a strong defence from one of those who voted against conviction! It's the end of the beginning for Trump in terms of his legal jeopardy.
An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House says it is. Judges and juries don't have that kind of discretion. It would be much harder to go after Trump in the ordinary criminal justice system. Nothing he said that day satisfies the legal definition of incitement.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2021, 08:06:34 am
An impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the House says it is. Judges and juries don't have that kind of discretion. It would be much harder to go after Trump in the ordinary criminal justice system. Nothing he said that day satisfies the legal definition of incitement.

Even if the criminal justice system relies on your Judgment and ruling,  :laugh:, this latest controversy is not the full extent of his legal problems.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/feb/13/impeachment-over-donald-trump-faces-more-investiga/
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 15, 2021, 09:45:23 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3W9E0oU48I

So it's okay for Dems to tell people to fight but when Trump does it then it's incitement.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2021, 10:23:03 am

So it's okay for Dems to tell people to fight but when Trump does it then it's incitement.

I know this is going to be a tough one for you to understand but context matters.
Clearly we wouldn't be charging the Beastie Boys with incitement after releasing this would we?  :laugh:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk&list=LLJFoxCFhCvjyifMiDSVjFbA&index=2220

Now telling an armed mob to 'fight like hell', 'to stop the steal' after organising a rally to march on the Capital building, after feeding that mob with lies for last six months and then doing nothing to stop it, well, that's why seven Republicans voted to convict as well. 
I don't recall seeing any Democrats being convinced by those desk thumping ambulance chasers working pro bono on the defence team did you?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 15, 2021, 11:43:55 am
Dude, the only person I recall that was making claims about cues on this thread was yourself in relation the legitimate actions of the Legislature exercising its proper functioning whilst exercising oversight of the Executive. According to yourself this proper functioning of a Federal constitutional system of governance exercising checks and balances over Executive power was labelled a cue!
Do provide actual quotes if you wish to correct me though. Your accusation here have even less credibility than Giuliani on a bad hair day.  :laugh: 
Hasty smart phone typing or drunk?

What I described is known as a soft coup. It's when a governing body uses pretexts, often medical or legal to depose someone.

Anyone with a brain knows the Russia stuff was baloney from the get go. The fact that the various agencies had to manipulate evidence, and in some cases outright manufacture it to get their FISA warrants proves that.

Do you have any issue at all with what went down during the investigation? You think its okay for intel agencies to manufacture evidence and deceive judges to go after an elected official? You think that isnt as bad as some guy in a yak hat?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 15, 2021, 11:47:09 am
Buddy, you haven't got a clue. I don't know who you, in your fever dreams are describing, but it sure isn't me.

As for getting a life, why don't you stop telling strangers what to do and think and get one of your own. But before you're on the way to doing that, stop drinking and driving.
Notice how you ignore the point about your and everyone else's behavior being inconsistent with a real coup?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 15, 2021, 01:25:59 pm
Notice how you ignore the point about your and everyone else's behavior being inconsistent with a real coup?

A coup doesn’t need tanks rolling down the streets for it to be called a coup. It’s a miracle that more people didn’t die in their act of insurrection.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2021, 01:30:28 pm

(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/09/21/PPHX/68bca25e-86d7-4235-bf79-b50e2fe237c4-DW1_0120.jpg?width=660&height=443&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
What I described is known as a soft coup. It's when a governing body uses pretexts, often medical or legal to depose someone.
blah blah blah QAnon style deep state conspiracy!
 
Well, at least there was some progress there where you acknowledged you were the one asserting a claytons cue rather than myself. Just as the a matter of interest though for those of thus who care about language. Was the election loss part of this conspiracy according to your theory? If not when was the deposition of power that you speak of ?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 15, 2021, 01:57:06 pm
A coup doesn’t need tanks rolling down the streets for it to be called a coup. It’s a miracle that more people didn’t die in their act of insurrection.
Actually, its not a miracle when you look at what was actually being done. The death toll you got was about what you'd expect from that fracas- All the dead were the protesters, now that evidence is emerging that the cop who died was not in fact bludgeoned to death by protesters.

The death toll makes perfect sense if you don't try to blow this out of proportion. That's why there is a discrepancy between YOUR perceptions and the actual outcome.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 15, 2021, 10:28:47 pm
Whatever happened to Marti the great Champion of free speech who had the last 1/2 dozen posts deleted because he was just too embarrassed  :-[
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 16, 2021, 05:09:14 am
Notice how you ignore the point about your and everyone else's behavior being inconsistent with a real coup?
It's only a real coup if it's from the region coup d'etat. Otherwise it's just sparkling white terrorism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 16, 2021, 10:18:26 am
Whatever happened to Marti the great Champion of free speech who had the last 1/2 dozen posts deleted because he was just too embarrassed  :-[
Huh? I didn't have the posts deleted. I don't have that power. Maybe you should get more info before reaching a conclusion.

Why would I be embarrassed about posting links to mainstream media sources that highlight the irregularities and misconduct that was part of the Trump Russia investigation and not some "QAnon conspiracy theory"?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 16, 2021, 01:01:00 pm
It's only a real coup if it's from the region coup d'etat. Otherwise it's just sparkling white terrorism.

It's not beaucoup of a coup unless Marry says so!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 16, 2021, 02:06:21 pm
It's not beaucoup of a coup unless Marry says so!
Was there some kind of organized meeting by the "plotters" of this "coup" when they breached the Capitol? Did they broadcast some sort of serious address (not joking 30 second video) to the people establishing a new government and calling on a serious uprising? Did they claim to be in control of the levers of government?

Where were the organized paramilitary units? Gun battles all across Washington? Coordinated uprisings across the country?

Deep down inside you know this wasn't a real coup. Stop lying to yourself.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on February 16, 2021, 02:19:12 pm
It's not beaucoup of a coup unless Marry says so!

Coup D'etama

(https://imgur.com/MKs2nvr.jpg)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 16, 2021, 03:04:46 pm
Was there some kind of organized meeting by the "plotters" of this "coup" when they breached the Capitol? Did they broadcast some sort of serious address (not joking 30 second video) to the people establishing a new government and calling on a serious uprising? Did they claim to be in control of the levers of government?

Where were the organized paramilitary units? Gun battles all across Washington? Coordinated uprisings across the country?

Deep down inside you know this wasn't a real coup. Stop lying to yourself.

Yeah but you’re going the completely opposite way and only calling it the worst QAnon cosplay convention ever.

Also, you’re kinda right, in that, it can’t technically be called a coup because the lead instigator was the sitting President (albeit having lost the recent election).

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 16, 2021, 03:27:08 pm
Coupang insurrection...buy one Trump, get 7 free!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 16, 2021, 03:45:50 pm
Even though this should have all been forgotten by Super bowl, Marti is being seriously misunderstood here.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_2hd3I-zZRaZZWm1kDEhaVVFpwqfFJtlqhg&usqp=CAU)
His point is that the a legitimate investigation into  Russian interference into the 2016 election which resulted in nobody being killed or injured and nobody was deposed from power was a far more serious soft coup than a violent insurrection a the Capitol building where rioters attempted to prevent certification of a president when 6 people lost their lives and over 100 police officers were injured!
He also has links to fox News to prove it! :laugh:

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 16, 2021, 05:00:47 pm
Even though this should have all been forgotten by Super bowl, Marti is being seriously misunderstood here.
His point is that the a legitimate investigation into  Russian interference into the 2016 election which resulted in nobody being killed or injured and nobody was deposed from power was a far more serious soft coup than a violent insurrection a the Capitol building where rioters attempted to prevent certification of a president when 6 people lost their lives and over 100 police officers were injured!
He also has links to fox News to prove it! :laugh:



You yourself acknowledge having seen the post
Whatever happened to Marti the great Champion of free speech who had the last 1/2 dozen posts deleted because he was just too embarrassed  :-[
So you know the links were to CNN, USA Today, and NBC News. Not FOXNews. I don't link to FOXNews when debating with you guys for precisely this reason. I've even made it a point of debate with conservative posters on this site.

Why is it so hard to admit that there were shenanigans with the Russia investigation?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 16, 2021, 07:45:24 pm
Was there some kind of organized meeting by the "plotters" of this "coup" when they breached the Capitol? Did they broadcast some sort of serious address (not joking 30 second video) to the people establishing a new government and calling on a serious uprising? Did they claim to be in control of the levers of government?

Where were the organized paramilitary units? Gun battles all across Washington? Coordinated uprisings across the country?

Deep down inside you know this wasn't a real coup. Stop lying to yourself.
LOL.

Investigations continue to show they were  organized.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 12:45:14 am
Let's do a roundup of fail

1. The Lincoln Project
Some of you posted links to their stuff and cited them. Woops.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/12/lincoln-project-scandal-468984

2. Trump-Russia
Yes, it was a sham investigation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-abuses-domestic-surveillance-trump-campaign-eerily-echo-red-scare-ncna1113696
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/while-were-talking-about-abuse-of-power-lets-look-at-the-fbi/2020/01/23/b6dfda80-3e25-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html

Sorry, no FOXNews there Adel.

3. Biden Continuing Trump Policies or Breaking Promises
Biden called Trump's foreign policy a disaster, but is not really doing much to turn it around.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210213022139/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-domestic-front-biden-is-all-ambition-why-not-foreign-policy/2021/02/11/58a215f2-6ca8-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html

Biden Failing to Close Private Detention Centers
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article249182935.html

More Bumbling at the Border
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/03/biden-house-migrant-children-texas-facility-closed-under-trump/4378699001/

So much for "Following the Science"
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/biden-covid-schools-468979

4. The "Fine People" Hoax should be put to bed after this. Congrats to those who fell for it.
https://youtu.be/IHc3-gPxRw0?t=31 (https://youtu.be/IHc3-gPxRw0?t=31)

Video evidence of what a fake lie it was that Trump called Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "fine people".
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 12:50:50 am
LOL.

Investigations continue to show they were  organized.
Yes, if there is one word that comes to mind when looking at these people, it's "organized."  :rolleyes:

(https://images.theconversation.com/files/378904/original/file-20210114-24-23j5lo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C25%2C5700%2C3774&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip)

Seriously, you guys took the most extreme conclusion and you just flat out refuse to budge on it despite common sense showing that it does not rise to that level. Why not just step back and call it something else and go the route I suggested from the getgo- Merciless mockery of these losers and scumbags who are going to all be seeing long prison terms?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 17, 2021, 01:49:30 am
"Very fine people" chose to march alongside white nationalists, at a rally organised and publicised by...white nationalists...to protest the removal of a statue glorifying a brutal slave owning seditionist who didn't want public statues glorifying himself in the first place.

"but you're changing history"  :laugh: :laugh:

Given the above has been demonstrated over pages in a separate thread 2 years back, I won't be going back and forth with you over it. Just laying down the context of the "hoax".

PS: take down statues of any slave owning founding fathers too and put them in museums alongside R. E. Lee...sheeeeeit!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 17, 2021, 04:37:33 am
Let's do a roundup of fail

1. The Lincoln Project
Some of you posted links to their stuff and cited them. Woops.
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/12/lincoln-project-scandal-468984

2. Trump-Russia
Yes, it was a sham investigation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-abuses-domestic-surveillance-trump-campaign-eerily-echo-red-scare-ncna1113696
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/while-were-talking-about-abuse-of-power-lets-look-at-the-fbi/2020/01/23/b6dfda80-3e25-11ea-baca-eb7ace0a3455_story.html

Sorry, no FOXNews there Adel.

3. Biden Continuing Trump Policies or Breaking Promises
Biden called Trump's foreign policy a disaster, but is not really doing much to turn it around.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210213022139/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-the-domestic-front-biden-is-all-ambition-why-not-foreign-policy/2021/02/11/58a215f2-6ca8-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html

Biden Failing to Close Private Detention Centers
https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article249182935.html

More Bumbling at the Border
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/03/biden-house-migrant-children-texas-facility-closed-under-trump/4378699001/

So much for "Following the Science"
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/13/biden-covid-schools-468979

4. The "Fine People" Hoax should be put to bed after this. Congrats to those who fell for it.
https://youtu.be/IHc3-gPxRw0?t=31 (https://youtu.be/IHc3-gPxRw0?t=31)

Video evidence of what a fake lie it was that Trump called Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists "fine people".
Well done  Marti. You've presented quite an array of links there to bolster your case of whataboutism.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: T_Rex on February 17, 2021, 08:24:01 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErY803HW8AMnmzK?format=png)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 17, 2021, 08:32:18 am
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but... ...not all causes are equal.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 17, 2021, 09:02:35 am
Yes, BLM is a tiny cause in the great scheme of things - the number of unarmed black people killed by Police officers in the US is 135 people in the last 6 years.  About the same proportionally as those killed in the rioting.

Extinction Rebellion, on the other hand claims it's fighting for the survival of the entire planet, so I guess would be more than justified in leaving a few bodies in their wake. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 17, 2021, 09:08:15 am
Give it a few more years.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 09:29:09 am
"Very fine people" chose to march alongside white nationalists, at a rally organised and publicised by...white nationalists...to protest the removal of a statue glorifying a brutal slave owning seditionist who didn't want public statues glorifying himself in the first place.

"but you're changing history"  :laugh: :laugh:

Given the above has been demonstrated over pages in a separate thread 2 years back, I won't be going back and forth with you over it. Just laying down the context of the "hoax".

PS: take down statues of any slave owning founding fathers too and put them in museums alongside R. E. Lee...sheeeeeit!
Pretty much any cause will attract extremists, that does not invalidate their cause nor make the people awful. Palestinian independence is not invalidated simply because Hamas exists. BLM is not invalidated because some nutjob decides to shoot some cops.

Often in causes events are hastily organized around causes that have exploded in the news, usually by front organizations with generic names. It's unfortunate that people aren't careful but it's not surprising it works, specifically because that is what it is designed to do.

All that aside, it doesn't change the fact that the media and Trump's opponents deliberately misrepresented his comments. It's a fact- Trump DID NOT call Nazis and white supremacists "very fine people." He condemned them totally. It is there on video tape.

Why can't you admit that?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 09:34:42 am
Well done  Marti. You've presented quite an array of links there to bolster your case of whataboutism.  :laugh:
Actually the point of the post was
1. Discredit a source often cited here
2. Confirm that Trump-Russia was a sham.
3. Point out how your opposition to Trump policies was manufactured and your outrage is based on partisanship. I actually am willing to acknowledge there is probably a fair amount of nuance in all of these and of course, Biden as a politician has to try and differentiate himself from his opponent. But maybe you should in turn acknowledge that your hyperventilating over certain Trump policies was media induced and they weren't the horror that was claimed.
4. Debunk one of the most prominent lies about Trump.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Stephensalz on February 17, 2021, 09:53:44 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErY803HW8AMnmzK?format=png)

I don't like to talk politics on online forums, but I have to point out, in addition to what Kyndo said about not all causes are equal, that the language in your infograph is so biased that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. 

For example:  Capitol riot:  Encouraged only by fringe political groups.  Maybe once it was underway and the blowback started happening, but what about before? 

As another example:  BLM protests:  23 people killed.  How many of those were protesters killed?  Over half?  I assume Kyle Rittenhouse's victim is included in this 23.   Do you blame the African Americans for the violence at a lynching?

Lastly, the conclusions.  You can always assume your source is biased when it speaks in absolutes.  No outrage from the BLM protests?  Were you outraged, as it seems?  There, I just disproved the conclusion. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 09:57:14 am
I feel like I'm pointing out the obvious here, but... ...not all causes are equal.
Well both causes are based on a perception of reality that is not wholly fact-based (though I'd contend that BLM is much closer to the truth).

1. BLM is justifiably based around a core truth- systemic racism in policing. However there is some truth to the scope of the problem not being as widespread. When you look at the actual number of incidents, this isn't a source of mass death (specifically cop shootings). On the other hand an overlooked part is that mass incarceration probably is a cause of mass reduced life expectancy and policing has contributed to that.

The big problem is BLM chose to focus on some high-profile cases where the facts did not support their conclusions. They made the same mistake as the police- Prejudged the evidence and stereotyped the actions of the other. Of course just like the cops, there were many cases where they were right and things were open and shut. Like the existence of law enforcement, overall BLM is a net benefit to society, but like law enforcement it is not error-free and could stand to listen to some critiquing.

Riots are on the rioters, not BLM.

2. As far as the vote thing, you agreed that the process could have been more transparent. I think you'd also agree that events in US history have led to a massive distrust in government that cuts across party lines. There was a reason both parties had massive anti-establishment waves in 2016. "Rigged and stolen" was the language first used by Sanders supporters. The DNC also didn't really deny putting their thumb on the scale for their preferred candidate. Is it surprising that some people did not trust official government representatives (i.e. Congress) and the media, two institutions that have single-digit levels of trust amongst the American public? And if they genuinely believed it, aren't they justified in their mind in taking strong measures to prevent it?

Of course the problem is the evidence to support their claim is circumstantial. While in my book it justified a top-to-bottom complete audit and probably an overhaul, that's not the same as rioting.

Riots after Michael Brown weren't justified, but they certainly were understandable given built up mistrust of the system.

3. Is it worse to attack the Capitol building or local shops to show your outrage? Your government or your neighbor?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 10:06:23 am
I assume Kyle Rittenhouse's victim is included in this 23.   
I would not prejudge the Rittenhouse case and be sure to look at ALL of the evidence and give his defense a fair shake. It's the same thing we ask cops to do with citizens and suspects.

Also be sure to understand self-defense and justification laws clearly.

Based on what I've seen, this case is going to hinge on Rittenhouse being in possession of a firearm across state lines and being at the scene, not so much the shoot itself. Unless Rittenhouse decided to assault someone first and that wasn't on tape.

If you already think he's guilty then I would brace yourself for disappointment in his trial.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 10:56:03 am
to protest the removal of a statue glorifying a brutal slave owning seditionist who didn't want public statues glorifying himself in the first place.

PS: take down statues of any slave owning founding fathers too and put them in museums alongside R. E. Lee...sheeeeeit!
I think using 21st century morals in totality to judge 19th century people is questionable. While even by the standards of the time, Lee was behind the times. However, by the standards of his time, place and circumstance, Lee was not "brutal."

As far as sedition, given that the entire identity of the US is based on revolution and sedition, it is not surprising that such a thing occurred. We also forget that at the time, the country was a far looser one. A far greater number of people did not travel much and had much stronger bonds of community and kinship.

The reason the Southern states and populace were given license to honor their leaders was because we wanted to unify the country. Treating your vanquished foe like a respected adversary is often better than placing your boot on their face. "Where was Hitler born? At Versailles" is the often cited example. Perhaps history would have been far more unfortunate if we had gone the harshest way. Perhaps brutal reprisals and massive redistribution would have been as effective as such policies under Mao or Stalin and while well intended, caused far worse postbellum life expectancy for both black and white. Of course, it might have been much better. Just you can't be so certain.

If you want unity, then you often need to embrace tradition. Pretty much wiping the founding trailditions (Edit- I'm not editing this because it's awesome that 'trailditions' is fine with the spellchecker) of your country, still embraced by the majority, would likely lead to massive disunity and upheaval in short order. Disunity and upheaval tend to result in poor outcomes for the third largest ethnic group in a country at something like 11-13% of the population. In your efforts to finally vanquish centuries dead foes, it is unwise to jeopardize your future.

I am consistently amazed at how people in the year 2021 have more hatred and loathing towards long dead Confederates and Revolutionaries than the people who actually fought them. Something about that is not healthy psychologically.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 17, 2021, 11:12:38 am
Well both causes are based on a perception of reality that is not wholly fact-based (though I'd contend that BLM is much closer to the truth).
I'm not commenting on the relative morality/necessity of either riot. I just want to point out that tabulating the effects of a movement and weighing them against each other is completely irrelevant if one doesn't take their causes into consideration.

To do so would result in (after a bit of reductio ad absurdum)  stuff like the following:

-The Allies destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure and shot hundreds of thousands of people.
- Jim Jones didn't directly kill anybody other than himself.
 Ergo, the Jonestown Massacre was the morally superior of the 2 incidents.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 17, 2021, 02:40:55 pm
I think using 21st century morals in totality to judge 19th century people is questionable. While even by the standards of the time, Lee was behind the times. However, by the standards of his time, place and circumstance, Lee was not "brutal."

By the standards of the early 20th century, Hitler wasn't "brutal"...I mean, millions had already died in European warfare 20 years before and European imperialists had spent the previous decades committing "normal" acts of ruling in their empires across the Americas, Asia and Africa. Subjugation, massacres, torture...etc. Just the regular stuff for that time.

Moreover, the Japanese were doing the same things during the same period! So we obviously can't label the Japanese nor Nazis as brutal based on 21st century standards...it was pretty "normal" for them to do what they were doing at the time!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 17, 2021, 07:09:41 pm

I am consistently amazed at how people in the year 2021 have more hatred and loathing towards long dead Confederates and Revolutionaries than the people who actually fought them. Something about that is not healthy psychologically.

What are you on about?

They WENT TO WAR against them, shot and killed them, treated them as enemies to the country.   Dunno how much more hate and loathing you want.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 17, 2021, 09:48:54 pm
What are you on about?

They WENT TO WAR against them, shot and killed them, treated them as enemies to the country.   Dunno how much more hate and loathing you want.
You clearly haven't read much on the subject, particularly on Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Are you even aware of the terms of surrender and how generous they were? At what special provisions were given? At how the soldiers treated each other? At what happened when the Confederates stacked arms? Ever read about Stones River?

You should also understand that the attitude of private soldiers towards other private soldiers is much less one of hatred. Even general officers up to Grant wanted to move on and didn't let hatred consume them.

Lincoln didn't hate them. Grant didn't hate them. Jospeh E. Johnston was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral.

4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day of a 4oz ration of corn meal as your only food tends to transfer the hatred towards the mucky mucks and not some conscripted private in blue or grey.

At one point they considered forcing Grant to rescind his terms of surrender and enforcing harsh treatment. Grant refused and it was understood that if such an order had been given, either Grant would have resigned or marched on Washington and if he resigned the Army of the Potomac would have mutineed.

The war was over. They were sick of killing. And they'd taken their last order from some fatcat in Washington who saw them as a tool.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 17, 2021, 10:02:46 pm
Lots of neo-Confederate babble from the usual suspects who are tying themselves up in knots as they try to deny the obvious.

"The war was over."  Not for the South it wasn't.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 17, 2021, 11:43:25 pm
You clearly haven't read much on the subject, particularly on Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Are you even aware of the terms of surrender and how generous they were? At what special provisions were given? At how the soldiers treated each other? At what happened when the Confederates stacked arms? Ever read about Stones River?

You should also understand that the attitude of private soldiers towards other private soldiers is much less one of hatred. Even general officers up to Grant wanted to move on and didn't let hatred consume them.

Lincoln didn't hate them. Grant didn't hate them. Jospeh E. Johnston was a pallbearer at Sherman's funeral.

4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day of a 4oz ration of corn meal as your only food tends to transfer the hatred towards the mucky mucks and not some conscripted private in blue or grey.

At one point they considered forcing Grant to rescind his terms of surrender and enforcing harsh treatment. Grant refused and it was understood that if such an order had been given, either Grant would have resigned or marched on Washington and if he resigned the Army of the Potomac would have mutineed.

The war was over. They were sick of killing. And they'd taken their last order from some fatcat in Washington who saw them as a tool.
This is just bizarre.  Who's the fatcat we're talking about? Be specific, thanks.

And what the eff does Cold Harbor have to do with anything?  You just blathering, eh?

Oh, and please talk about Johnson's role in the lack of penalties. 

Next you're going to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery ...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on February 18, 2021, 05:44:13 am
4 years of brutal warfare and just trying not to get mowed down at Cold Harbor or your 10th straight day...

I dunno man...was it really brutal though? We can't exactly judge the time by 21st century standards. That kind of warfare was pretty normal for them at that time.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 18, 2021, 06:16:36 am
I don't think you really get this judging things by different standards idea. You can look at the Nazi holocaust and the American civil war and compare them with events that have happened before and since and deduce they were particularly brutal events in history. What's not useful is to make judgments on the morality of historical figures by modern standards, or you'll end up writing everyone off as evil in one way or another. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 08:38:11 am
I dunno man...was it really brutal though? We can't exactly judge the time by 21st century standards. That kind of warfare was pretty normal for them at that time.
Actually it wasn't normal. The Civil War saw the transition from large open field battles, emphasizing maneuvers and organized line of battle to static trench warfare. The defensive firepower of the rifled musket changed things completely. From 1861-1863 battles, with the exception of the Seven Days, battles were singular events. Grant's Overland Campaign was a constant slog of battle after battle that completly shocked the public with its casualties. The end result was the Siege of Petersburg- World War I in 1864.

There were also the states of medicine, sanitation, nutrition, hygeine, etc. of the time. A curious mish mash of the modern and the medieval that often had the worst of both.

The scale of casualties too was something far beyond any war America fought before or since.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 08:41:11 am
Lots of neo-Confederate babble from the usual suspects who are tying themselves up in knots as they try to deny the obvious.

"The war was over."  Not for the South it wasn't.
Nothing says "Neo-Confederate" like constantly emphasizing the actions of Grant and Lincoln.

Are you going to actually cite facts or are you just going to attach labels and hope no one asks you for facts?

If you aren't knowledgeable about something, the correct response is to learn and do your own research, not insult the person for pointing out facts.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 09:20:26 am
This is just bizarre.  Who's the fatcat we're talking about? Be specific, thanks.

And what the eff does Cold Harbor have to do with anything?  You just blathering, eh?

Oh, and please talk about Johnson's role in the lack of penalties. 

Next you're going to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery ...
The fatcats were the politicians in Congress or the War Department that would do things like supply the men with dysfunctional gear or give long winded speeches while the men ate hardtack. Or the person who paid for a substitute while they were conscripted.

Cold Harbor was one of the worst battles in the war for sheer senseless carnage right up there with Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe (which had preceded it) and the latter Siege of Petersburg.

Johnson had his own role for sure, but his policy was largely an extension of Lincoln's. Lincoln continually emphasized leniency and healing. There was no talk of significant reprisals or mass hangings by Lincoln.

While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

Anyways, I think you need to do further reading on the subject because you seem to have some misconceptions.

The War happened because of slavery and was about slavery. Nice try imagining what I was going to say, then blaming me for it, then using that to justify your position.

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 18, 2021, 11:00:05 am


While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.


The initial response to a Johnson presidency was optimistic. Even the so-called Radical Republicans, who would pursue impeachment proceedings three years later, supported the new president. "By the Gods," proclaimed Senator Ben Wade of Ohio, "there will be no trouble now in running this government." Such good relations quickly soured, however, as Johnson's views on Reconstruction surfaced. Within weeks, Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm

You keep confusing generals with political leaders.  Johnson pardoned thousands of white leaders so they could return to hold office again, where they went right back to their racist policies.

Quote

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.

I think a better question is why people still wrap themselves in the Confederate battle flag and protect statues of the founder of the KKK?  I think the reaction to these people that the statues and symbols they adore need to be removed from the public square and relegated along with their philosophy to a museum is perfectly rational. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:40:54 am
You keep confusing generals with political leaders.  Johnson pardoned thousands of white leaders so they could return to hold office again, where they went right back to their racist policies.
During sustained wars, particularly the U.S. Civil War, the line between political figure and general gets significantly blurred.

In the case of the ACW, politicians functioned as generals- Dan Sickels, the Cobb brothers, Ben Butler, Breckinridge, Franz Sigel, James Kemper, etc. In fact the term "political general" is one that comes from the American Civil War. You really can't separate the two.

In turn, generals exerted considerable political influence and influence over public opinion- McClellan, Grant, Sherman, Lee, etc. all saw their clout increase. Lee pretty much overshadowed Davis by 1863. Grant by the end of the war was in a position to refuse a direct order from the President.

And again, Johnson being lenient is simply him both following his predecessor and the fact that the will and the means to enforce mass reprisals simply didn't exist. Johnson is not a dictator and magician. He can't just wave his arms and demand that volunteers and conscripts who desperately want to go home now that the war is over spend the next 4 years chasing down ex-Confederates and torching homes that shelter them.

Quote
I think a better question is why people still wrap themselves in the Confederate battle flag and protect statues of the founder of the KKK?  I think the reaction to these people that the statues and symbols they adore need to be removed from the public square and relegated along with their philosophy to a museum is perfectly rational.
The rationale of allowing ex-Confederate generals to be recognized was due to several factors. Our country wanted to heal and move on. It was thought that by honoring the "manly spirit on both sides" that this would build unity and prevent future enmity. Obviously it wasn't wholly successful but it wasn't a total failure either and on balance, it seems to have worked. It enabled a unified America in her future conflicts. Think if that wasn't the case and instead the South truly was a place of constant dissension and rebellion? How would that have been a good thing in 1941? Hitler got nothing from the American South. Think that would have been the case if there had been nonstop Northern dominance and repression over the past 80 years (no matter how justified)?

Anyways, I think both are good questions. But you need to ask why this is such a burning issue. I'd also suggest that being irate at statues of people most Americans dont even know and whose primary function is to hold up a skateboard or to serve as a stand for a Coolatta is really the best way to address the problems you think this country faces.

Seems like its more raging than solving to me.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 18, 2021, 02:12:54 pm

The rationale of allowing ex-Confederate generals to be recognized was due to several factors. Our country wanted to heal and move on. It was thought that by honoring the "manly spirit on both sides" that this would build unity and prevent future enmity.

You are seriously suggesting that these statues were erected to "build unity" and "heal and move on"?

They sure waited a long time to decide to build unity and heal the country by statue.  I consulted the wikipedia list of Robert E Lee monuments (just for an example), and looked up all of them I could.  The very first General Lee monument was erected in 1884, so they waited 19 years after the war ended to start on healing.

The other statues/monuments I could find were: 1890, 1897, 1910, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1928, 1933 and 1936.  Unity and healin' sho' be takin' a long time, suh!

Looking at a different timeline, these statues were "just in time".  The rise of "Jim Crow" laws as the Southern whites pardoned by Johnson got their power back in the late 1870s; the second surge of the "Lost Cause" myth was as the last Confederate soldiers were dying out and some people wanted to preserve their memory, around WWI.   

"Unity" sounds less and less reasonable, but reasserting white supremacy begins to look like a pretty strong theory.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 05:59:57 pm
You are seriously suggesting that these statues were erected to "build unity" and "heal and move on"?

They sure waited a long time to decide to build unity and heal the country by statue.  I consulted the wikipedia list of Robert E Lee monuments (just for an example), and looked up all of them I could.  The very first General Lee monument was erected in 1884, so they waited 19 years after the war ended to start on healing.

The other statues/monuments I could find were: 1890, 1897, 1910, 1912, 1917, 1924, 1928, 1933 and 1936.  Unity and healin' sho' be takin' a long time, suh!

Looking at a different timeline, these statues were "just in time".  The rise of "Jim Crow" laws as the Southern whites pardoned by Johnson got their power back in the late 1870s; the second surge of the "Lost Cause" myth was as the last Confederate soldiers were dying out and some people wanted to preserve their memory, around WWI.   

"Unity" sounds less and less reasonable, but reasserting white supremacy begins to look like a pretty strong theory.
That attempt at unity started with Lincoln himself while the war was still going on. After his reelection and the SIege of Petersburg, the writing was on the wall. Lincoln and Grant were considering what to be done and both wanted the thing over with and for life to go on.

The writings of the time, the various events, and reunions, the fact that many of the officers had all known each other and fought together in Mexico made thigs much different. A lot more went into it than just looking at dates of statues.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Lincoln, Grant, etc. did not pursue a path a mass retribution and that our country was better off for it.

White Supremacy then and now were not the same thing. Even many abolitionists said things that would be cringey now.

If these things were such magnets for white supremacy and failed at unity, why did our Southern boys fight the ultimate white supremacist from 1941-1945 in vehicles named "Lee", "Stuart", and "Jackson" while training at places named "Hood", "Benning", and "Bragg"?

If your view of things was true, these people, who were far more racist then, should have ran up the Stars and Bars next to the Swastika and opened fire on the Yankees in the name of the Great White Race. They didn't.

Seriously, the Civil War was over decades ago. You tell Southerners to get over it and rightly so. Well, you need to get over it too.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 18, 2021, 08:05:31 pm
Nothing says "Neo-Confederate" like constantly emphasizing the actions of Grant and Lincoln.

Are you going to actually cite facts or are you just going to attach labels and hope no one asks you for facts?

If you aren't knowledgeable about something, the correct response is to learn and do your own research, not insult the person for pointing out facts.
Labels are quite helpful. They are informative and put things in perspective.

As for you and facts, LOL.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 18, 2021, 08:08:41 pm
The fatcats were the politicians in Congress or the War Department that would do things like supply the men with dysfunctional gear or give long winded speeches while the men ate hardtack. Or the person who paid for a substitute while they were conscripted.

Cold Harbor was one of the worst battles in the war for sheer senseless carnage right up there with Spotsylvania Court House and the Mule Shoe (which had preceded it) and the latter Siege of Petersburg.

Johnson had his own role for sure, but his policy was largely an extension of Lincoln's. Lincoln continually emphasized leniency and healing. There was no talk of significant reprisals or mass hangings by Lincoln.

While Johnson had little interest in the welfare of black ex-slaves, he was quite interested in seeing former Confederate leaders tried and convicted.

https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/grant-protects-lee-from-treason-trial/

Anyways, I think you need to do further reading on the subject because you seem to have some misconceptions.

The War happened because of slavery and was about slavery. Nice try imagining what I was going to say, then blaming me for it, then using that to justify your position.

Anyways, the point still stands- Why do people in 2021 have more hatred towards Confederates than people who actually fought them?

That's not mentally healthy. Something is wrong with your perception of reality if you're shaking your fist at people who have been dead for 100 years.
Hey Kreskin, where's your evidence comparing the emotional states of mind of Civil War soldiers and contemporary Americans? 

Facts, you said. Let's see them.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 18, 2021, 08:21:43 pm
That attempt at unity started with Lincoln himself while the war was still going on. After his reelection and the SIege of Petersburg, the writing was on the wall. Lincoln and Grant were considering what to be done and both wanted the thing over with and for life to go on.

The writings of the time, the various events, and reunions, the fact that many of the officers had all known each other and fought together in Mexico made thigs much different. A lot more went into it than just looking at dates of statues.

I don't know why it's so hard to accept that Lincoln, Grant, etc. did not pursue a path a mass retribution and that our country was better off for it.

White Supremacy then and now were not the same thing. Even many abolitionists said things that would be cringey now.

If these things were such magnets for white supremacy and failed at unity, why did our Southern boys fight the ultimate white supremacist from 1941-1945 in vehicles named "Lee", "Stuart", and "Jackson" while training at places named "Hood", "Benning", and "Bragg"?

If your view of things was true, these people, who were far more racist then, should have ran up the Stars and Bars next to the Swastika and opened fire on the Yankees in the name of the Great White Race. They didn't.

Seriously, the Civil War was over decades ago. You tell Southerners to get over it and rightly so. Well, you need to get over it too.

I'm pretty much done with this nonsense, for one thing, you keep confusing military and civilian leaders.  You have no response to the timing of the southern re-emergence of CW generals so you, as you so often do, deflect--abolitionists said things that would be cringey now?  What does that have to with it?  Of course Lincoln wanted healing and rebuilding, but many in the South did not, especially if it meant recognizing black people as citizens.  And once Reconstruction ended, they set about it.  Those "dates of statues" are quite telling, despite your dismissal.

You're doing what you usually do, picking out one oak in a forest full of pine trees--you refuse to see the forest for the tree.

But let me just point out that people are not entirely as simple as you seem to think.  For example, US forces worked together with the Soviets, knowing that they were philosophical enemies, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Patton kept getting in trouble for calling this out.  Well, among other things.

And the US didn't join the war in Europe to save the Jews, so I don't know where you're coming from on that (other than being obfuscatory and dishonest).  The depths of Nazi depravity were unknown to most until very late in the war.

And too many of the people trying to defend these Confederate symbols deny the atrocities of the Holocaust, and many even think 6MWNE.  To them, the Civil War is NOT over, and the Fourth Reich can't come soon enough. 

Symbols matter, and they are important, and these ones need to be removed from the public square, relegated to history.  Why are you denying this simple, obvious fact?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 18, 2021, 08:47:01 pm
"I fought the Nazis so how can I be a racist?" is Marty's argument? haha

Is that the WW2 version of "I'm not a racist because at least one of my friends is black."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:15:54 pm
I'm pretty much done with this nonsense, for one thing, you keep confusing military and civilian leaders.
As I've shown- Civil War military and civilian leaders overlapped. Political figures were granted general's commissions and fought in the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_general

Among the Confederate political generals includes a former f*ing Vice-President of the United States, TWO former governors of Virginia, the former governor of Massachussetts, members of Congress, and the foremost figure in the German-American community.

Military leaders were political leaders and political leaders were military leaders. They overlapped. Anyone who knows anything about the Civil War knows this. If you tried to dispute this you'd be laughed out of any Civil War historian's office.

Quote
You have no response to the timing of the southern re-emergence of CW generals
Yes, as Reconstruction both failed and receded, former Confederates became more and more prominent? What does that have to do with the point that there were no large-scale reprisals and the country wanted to move on? That bolsters my point.

Quote
Of course Lincoln wanted healing and rebuilding, but many in the South did not
And many more in the South did. It was one country. People moved on and accepted that it was one country. There was no sustained guerilla campaign, which was one of the big fears of the North. Did everyone forgive? Of course not, but overwhelmingly the public accepted that they were one American nation.

Quote
Those "dates of statues" are quite telling, despite your dismissal.
You're drawing your own conclusions by them. The fact that statues are built at various dates does not prove your point (which seems to vacillate over whether or not these statues were or were not about healing). People building statues as people are aging or dying? I'm shocked! Clearly that means they want another revolution or whatever it is you're trying to claim. Some were undoubtedly built for racist reasons and to push "Lost Cause" narratives. But not all. Many were in built in acknowledgment of military prowess. Regardless of what side he fought on, Jackson was a brilliant general who conducted one of the great campaigns in military history, one that is still studied and taught around the world.

Quote
But let me just point out that people are not entirely as simple as you seem to think.  For example, US forces worked together with the Soviets, knowing that they were philosophical enemies, but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Patton kept getting in trouble for calling this out.  Well, among other things.
That's my point- That common soldiers did not hate the other side en masse simply because they shot at each other.

Quote
And the US didn't join the war in Europe to save the Jews, so I don't know where you're coming from on that (other than being obfuscatory and dishonest).
Where did I say they did, Mr. Obfuscatory and Dishonest? FFS dude, do you actually read what you type and check and see if you're doing the thing you accuse the other of doing?

Quote
The depths of Nazi depravity were unknown to most until very late in the war.
No, but Hitler's ideology was known quite well before the war.

Quote
And too many of the people trying to defend these Confederate symbols deny the atrocities of the Holocaust, and many even think 6MWNE.  To them, the Civil War is NOT over, and the Fourth Reich can't come soon enough.
You got any numbers to support your claim that people not wanting statue removal consists of way too many denying the Holocaust and supporting a Fourth Reich? Are you suggesting that a sizeable number of those polled below embrace Holocaust denialism? The rally at Charlottesville, which was supposedly THE big gathering, had like what, 3-500 people tops?

https://morningconsult.com/2020/06/10/confederate-statue-flag-polling/

Dude, you're delusional if you think there are mass numbers of Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists running around.

Quote
Symbols matter, and they are important, and these ones need to be removed from the public square, relegated to history.  Why are you denying this simple, obvious fact?

1. Because it assumes that something is a source of inspiration and problems when it isn't
2. It assumes that it's removal will have any tangible benefit, when it won't
3. Wanting to tear down some statue, of a person who has been dead for generations, whose own enemies at the time didn't loathe to that level, that serves at present as a place people place their beverages and lean their skateboards as a way to combat racism, is an act of mental illness and extreme irrationality.

If these statues are such a magnet for your energy and efforts, it really calls into question what exactly you think is wrong in America and what is actually impacting things.

Tearing down the statues would have about as much impact on race relations in America as tearing down some colonial era building in Korea would have on Korean-Japanese relations- Not solve anything and just serve as a scapegoat for people's issues and a distraction from real problems.

I think Korean-Japanese relations have some troubles. I think race relations in America have problems. You know what doesn't enter my head as a solution? "Let's tear down a building or a statue."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:18:57 pm
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 18, 2021, 11:21:06 pm
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?
Bu-bye.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:23:23 pm
"I fought the Nazis so how can I be a racist?" is Marty's argument? haha

Is that the WW2 version of "I'm not a racist because at least one of my friends is black."
No, that wasn't my argument.

My argument was if these statues and vehicle names and forts really were inspiration for Nazism and White Supremacy, how come they didn't have that effect on millions of Americans in the South? Like shouldn't they have rebelled and sided with Hitler if what you claim those statues have the ability to do, is true? I mean, surely people were MORE RACIST back then. Hitler was at the height of his power from 1933-1941. His views were well known. And yet there was no mass Nazi movement across the South. Why?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:27:07 pm
Hey Kreskin, where's your evidence comparing the emotional states of mind of Civil War soldiers and contemporary Americans? 
Like, everything after Appomattox? Like, the recorded terms of Grant's surrender negotiations with Lee? Lincoln's recorded thoughts and writings? Like post-war reunions of Unions and Confederates which had people from both sides shake hands and embrace, and weren't filled with brawls and violence?

Seriously, you have MORE vitriol than someone who actually fought them and these people have all been dead for like almost 100 years. That's NOT mentally healthy. Something is seriously out of whack with your brain if you are wound up that much about them.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 18, 2021, 11:30:59 pm
Quote
Question- What exactly is your move after tearing down these statues? Like what is supposed to accomplish? What will it do? What's your next move afterwards?

Is the next move to tear down a statue of History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter, because he wasn't vocal enough on Civil Rights?

Bu-bye.
Translation: I have no answers for those questions, haven't thought of them, and now that I'm thinking about them for the first second of my life, it shows how ludicrous my position is.

Also, I think you missed the joke and the reference. Or maybe you do and it kind of shows the ridiculousness of a statue-destroying mob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czfKPaypNsU
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 19, 2021, 01:34:05 am
Like, everything after Appomattox? Like, the recorded terms of Grant's surrender negotiations with Lee? Lincoln's recorded thoughts and writings? Like post-war reunions of Unions and Confederates which had people from both sides shake hands and embrace, and weren't filled with brawls and violence?

Seriously, you have MORE vitriol than someone who actually fought them and these people have all been dead for like almost 100 years. That's NOT mentally healthy. Something is seriously out of whack with your brain if you are wound up that much about them.
Now you're psychoanalyzing me---thanks but no thanks. But while you've got your couch out, why don't you explain your need to habitually lie? SERIOUSLY.

Why don't you explain why the South still resents the North?

Grant and Lee were trying to reunify the nation and build a post-slavery South. Unfortunately, Lincoln was shot by one of your peace-loving Southerners and Reconstruction went all to pieces even while former soldiers held hands and sang kumbaya around the campfire.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Foreverparadise on February 19, 2021, 09:22:18 am
I feel that I was right all along. Trump lost the election, he was unable to take the loss, and on January 6th, he incited the insurrection. His supporters made up of fascists and white supremacists have stormed the capital to a point that they wanted
to go in the house chamber and kill Democrat representatives for certifying Joe Biden as the president. So yes, there was violence that happened why? Because these Trump supporters who stormed the capital are hot headed terrorists. They all should have been arrested and locked up in jail, but have they all been arrested and jailed? No. Why? Because there were not enough police to stop them. This is the kind of double standard that exists in American law enforcement that explains why American police are the worst police in the OECD. If it was black people trying to storm the capital they would be crushed. But no, they allowed these violent terrorist rioters to storm the capital because they give white people a pass.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 10:08:04 am
Why don't you explain why the South still resents the North?
The South is not a monolith. It wasn't then and it certainly isn't now.

Some Southerners have plenty of insecurities and resentments. You know what doesn't help? Treating the entire region as a monolith and constantly mocking and insulting it and the people there.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 10:10:25 am
I feel that I was right all along. Trump lost the election, he was unable to take the loss, and on January 6th, he incited the insurrection. His supporters made up of fascists and white supremacists have stormed the capital to a point that they wanted
to go in the house chamber and kill Democrat representatives for certifying Joe Biden as the president. So yes, there was violence that happened why? Because these Trump supporters who stormed the capital are hot headed terrorists. They all should have been arrested and locked up in jail, but have they all been arrested and jailed? No. Why? Because there were not enough police to stop them. This is the kind of double standard that exists in American law enforcement that explains why American police are the worst police in the OECD. If it was black people trying to storm the capital they would be crushed. But no, they allowed these violent terrorist rioters to storm the capital because they give white people a pass.
You're right. Rather than the outcome we had where 5 rioters were killed. We should have had the police open up so 50 rioters were killed.

There's this constant claim that if it was black people it would have been crushed. How many protests related to BLM were "crushed" nationwide last year?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 10:19:44 am
Good point. And in the future, when you're asked where you where on Jan. 6, 2021, you can say, "I was on the internet trying to sow doubt about the validity of elections in predominantly black counties, without evidence to support my claims. I did this in service to a man that I acknowledged to be a 'a liar', 'a conman' and 'a piece of shit'".

That will contextualize this event for future generations quite well, I think.
Only if you selectively read what I wrote does that work. I also predicted a Biden win, and blasted some of the batshit conspiracy stuff. My point was shared by Kyndo- This wasn't exactly done in a way that promoted confidence. If Trump had won we would gave had accusations of voter suppression and who knows what else. We already had the Russia nonsense.

This declining confidence in American elections combined with conspiracy theories goes across both parties and the powers that be don't seem to be taking the best steps to promote transparency and access.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 10:24:21 am
So can anyone actually give a coherent explanation as to what those statues do and what tearing them down will accomplish and what the next move is after that?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 19, 2021, 10:38:08 am
So can anyone actually give a coherent explanation as to what those statues do and what tearing them down will accomplish and what the next move is after that?

Make the place more interesting historically, nothing, they'll probably start going after street names, place names, school names etc. after that. As they're doing in the UK. Even someone as recent as JK Rowling is getting the treatment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/sussex-school-names-change-churchill-rowling-b1801304.html



Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 19, 2021, 11:22:48 am
So can anyone actually give a coherent explanation as to what those statues do and what tearing them down will accomplish and what the next move is after that?

Put them in a museum. End of story.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 11:42:14 am
Put them in a museum. End of story.
If taking these statues out of a park and putting them in a museum is all that is required to defeat them, these statues weren't doing jack shit in the first place.

Please tell me what practical effect putting them in a museum will have?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 19, 2021, 12:00:16 pm
I guess museums could have a chamber of horrors style section where they could put all the depictions of anyone who owned a slave,  cracked a homophobic joke or misgendered someone with all kinds of warning signs lining the entrance. This would unfortunately have to take up about 90% of the museum's space
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on February 19, 2021, 12:27:38 pm
The Parthenon is a temple of Athena and she's a goddess of warfare so tear it all down cuz war is bad and people died in wars and dying is a bad thing cuz people like living (mostly) and don't wanna be dead so Athena is bad and why is her temple even still standing? and I'm glad Notre Dame burned down cuz Catholics did bad things like paedo and inquiring and those are harmful so the fire was a blessing and I'm gonna go study punctuation now goodbye
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 19, 2021, 01:21:32 pm
If taking these statues out of a park and putting them in a museum is all that is required to defeat them, these statues weren't doing jack shit in the first place.

Please tell me what practical effect putting them in a museum will have?

If the statues weren’t doing anything and served no purpose then why build them decades after the civil war ended?

What is it that you think they represent? To celebrate a war they lost? To celebrate their opposition to the abolishment of slavery? To celebrate defending “Southern heritage” against the Yankees?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 01:39:22 pm
If the statues weren’t doing anything and served no purpose then why build them decades after the civil war ended?

What is it that you think they represent? To celebrate a war they lost? To celebrate their opposition to the abolishment of slavery? To celebrate defending “Southern heritage” against the Yankees?
That the statues served some purpose then does not mean they serve much of one now. Like, why don't you make another statue right across from it, giving them the finger or something?

Each statue was built for reasons that varied. From glorifying Southern slavery and racism to simply remembering dome general who led his troops well.

Pretty much any old Incan/Aztec/Mayan monument is connected to slavery and human sacrifice. Should we tear them down? Why do we not? Because no one is calling for Aztec Power outside of maybe some extreme Indigenous identity movement.

I know in your head there are untold millions of Nazis and White Supremacists out there and that Trump, because he advocated for immigration policies that would have been the default Democratic platform in 1996, is somehow Hitler, but that really isn't the case.

You talk about Trumpers being nuts, you're the one turning a disorganized violent riot into a coordinated coup attempt, imagining legions of Neo-Nazis, and thinking some pigeon-shit gathering statue of some long dead guy few know about is serving as a source of inspiration for White Supremacists.

You're at the level of moms who thought listening to Marilyn Manson would cause them to shoot up a school.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 19, 2021, 01:52:57 pm
You’re not making the point you think you’re making as usual.

You’re defending yourself against a point that no one else is making.

You post like you have two contrasting forces in your head constantly arguing with each other. You should see a doctor about it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 01:53:53 pm
Make the place more interesting historically, nothing, they'll probably start going after street names, place names, school names etc. after that. As they're doing in the UK. Even someone as recent as JK Rowling is getting the treatment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/sussex-school-names-change-churchill-rowling-b1801304.html
Winston was an SOB, but he was our SOB and things might have gone rather poorly if not for him.

Sorry, but whether someone is racist or not is not their defining characteristic (much of the time, but in many cases it can be).
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 01:57:49 pm
You post like you have two contrasting forces in your head constantly arguing with each other. You should see a doctor about it.
Actually, if you have only one view and can see only one perspective, the problem is with you.

You call that a weakness of mine? I disagree. It's a strength. I would haye not to have two different views clashing with each other and only see one side of things.

You need to learn that things like conservatism and liberalism are complimentary, not competitive.

Anyways I'm glad that the idea that there are multiple views/sides/takes/things to consider comes across. It means my writing is reflecting my own thinking.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: kevingrabb on February 19, 2021, 02:10:45 pm
Winston was an SOB, but he was our SOB and things might have gone rather poorly if not for him.

Sorry, but whether someone is racist or not is not their defining characteristic (much of the time, but in many cases it can be).

"Mr. Churhchill didn't like ethnic minorities."

And I'm sure if you were an upper-crust British man in his 70s during the first half of the 20th Century you'd have a TONNE of black friends, no doubt. hahaha
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 02:47:26 pm
I for one am upset at all the people who grew up between 300,000 AD and 1900 and were practically encouraged to conquer and smash the next tribe over, and ended up being somewhat racist.

It's 100% their fault they didn't grow up in a liberal western country post-1965 (really post-1980). How dare they not be obsessed with racial equality, gender equality, and instead be more focused on not getting invaded by the Kaiser or succumbing to Bilious Fever at the age of 4.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 19, 2021, 02:49:19 pm
Actually, if you have only one view and can see only one perspective, the problem is with you.

You call that a weakness of mine? I disagree. It's a strength. I would haye not to have two different views clashing with each other and only see one side of things.

You need to learn that things like conservatism and liberalism are complimentary, not competitive.

Anyways I'm glad that the idea that there are multiple views/sides/takes/things to consider comes across. It means my writing is reflecting my own thinking.

Your thinking is not complimentary but divisive.

If the answer was “Apples or oranges?” you would go on a long tirade about why pears are excluded from this line of thinking.

Your thinking is the problem.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 19, 2021, 04:35:44 pm
Your thinking is not complimentary but divisive.

Your thinking is the problem.
If someone asked "What about pears?" I'd laugh, not accuse them of having thought problems.


If the answer was “Apples or oranges?” you would go on a long tirade about why pears are excluded from this line of thinking. Like if an elementary student asked that, would you bark and shout at them to stick to oranges or apples or would you be happy they brought up pears and expressed their own individual preference and added a new perspective?

Your example said more about you than me.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 19, 2021, 10:39:16 pm
So can anyone actually give a coherent explanation as to what those statues do and what tearing them down will accomplish and what the next move is after that?
They memorialize and celebrate traitors.  Tearing them down will acknowledge their treason and will stop present and future generations from viewing slavery in the US through a distorted lens. The next move is to replace them with statues of real heroes who deserve being memorialized.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 20, 2021, 02:56:32 am
Your thinking is not complimentary but divisive.

If the answer was “Apples or oranges?” you would go on a long tirade about why pears are excluded from this line of thinking.

Your thinking is the problem.

When faced with these two options Marti would go off on a wide ranging tirade arguing that pears are indeed both apples and oranges while at the same time being both inferior and superior. He would then provide links that refer to avocados and mangoes to buttress his support for this argument. At some stage in the tirade he would accuse his opponents of being in favour of bananas when they were suggesting apples. 
After being mocked, ridiculed and eventually ignored Marti would attempt a victory lap!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 20, 2021, 09:51:50 am
They memorialize and celebrate traitors.  Tearing them down will acknowledge their treason and will stop present and future generations from viewing slavery in the US through a distorted lens. The next move is to replace them with statues of real heroes who deserve being memorialized.
Dude, I think you're way overstating the impact of these statues.

It's 2021.

"Everyone on tiktok, instagram, and youtube denounces slavery and racism, and I was about to donate to BLM but then I walked past this statue of Felix K. Zollikoffer and decided to start supporting slavery."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 20, 2021, 04:50:58 pm
I don't think that the issue is necessarily about impact: it's about contrition, and the admission that society has changed in such a way that the values that the statues are associated with are no longer mainstream.

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 20, 2021, 11:36:45 pm
Dude, I think you're way overstating the impact of these statues.

It's 2021.

"Everyone on tiktok, instagram, and youtube denounces slavery and racism, and I was about to donate to BLM but then I walked past this statue of Felix K. Zollikoffer and decided to start supporting slavery."
Dude,  what kind of shovel do you use for all this BS you peddle?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 20, 2021, 11:38:55 pm
I don't think that the issue is necessarily about impact: it's about contrition, and the admission that society has changed in such a way that the values that the statues are associated with are no longer mainstream.


Good point, but impact is relevant as well. Those statues broadcast values that are abhorrent.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 21, 2021, 04:16:53 am
Facts for those so inclined:

"The U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week and obtained by Yahoo News.

A review of last year’s domestic terrorist incidents by a DHS fusion center — which shares threat-related information between federal, state and local partners — found that although civil unrest and antigovernment violence were associated with “non-affiliated, right-wing and left-wing actors, right-wing [domestic violent extremists] were responsible for the majority of fatal attacks in the Homeland in 2020.”
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 21, 2021, 10:37:20 am
Good point, but impact is relevant as well. Those statues broadcast values that are abhorrent.
Again assumes facts not ecidence: That people passing by these statues notice or care.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 21, 2021, 10:40:07 am
I don't think that the issue is necessarily about impact: it's about contrition, and the admission that society has changed in such a way that the values that the statues are associated with are no longer mainstream.
I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that.

Seems more like a scapegoat for people's fears and a way for them to get some entertainment in their lives that lets them feel morally superior.

Again- The fact that there is more objection to these than from people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE CONFEDERATES, is not a sign of any kind of solid thinking or emotional stability and perspective (I'm referring to people worked up about them, not a simple 10 seconds of thought and supporting removal but not being emotionally invested in it)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 21, 2021, 10:45:43 am
Facts for those so inclined:

"The U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week and obtained by Yahoo News.

A review of last year’s domestic terrorist incidents by a DHS fusion center — which shares threat-related information between federal, state and local partners — found that although civil unrest and antigovernment violence were associated with “non-affiliated, right-wing and left-wing actors, right-wing [domestic violent extremists] were responsible for the majority of fatal attacks in the Homeland in 2020.”
Notice how they don't give numbers. Your chances of being killed by right-wing terrorists are about the same as death by erotic misadventure.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 21, 2021, 11:12:10 am
I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that.

Seems more like a scapegoat for people's fears and a way for them to get some entertainment in their lives that lets them feel morally superior.

Again- The fact that there is more objection to these than from people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE CONFEDERATES, is not a sign of any kind of solid thinking or emotional stability and perspective (I'm referring to people worked up about them, not a simple 10 seconds of thought and supporting removal but not being emotionally invested in it)

Do Confederate statues that represented a war fought to keep slavery have a purpose? Please tell us why these statues should be kept in public spaces.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 21, 2021, 06:47:26 pm
Do Confederate statues that represented a war fought to keep slavery have a purpose? Please tell us why these statues should be kept in public spaces.
They had a purpose at one point when people cared. Now they're just something gathering dust.

Tear it down to make way for new development or whatever, fine. But thinking that statue is some sort of source of inspiration and influence is nuts. If you're going to destroy, have a good reason.

Like, it is just about the singularly most illogical and ineffective thing you could do to stop racism and people are spending tremendous energy on it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 21, 2021, 08:45:47 pm
Again assumes facts not ecidence: That people passing by these statues notice or care.
The fact that so many are protesting them and signing petitions supporting their removal show that people both notice and care.

Objection overruled.

That you are defending them shows that you care.

Case dismissed.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 21, 2021, 08:47:26 pm
Notice how they don't give numbers. Your chances of being killed by right-wing terrorists are about the same as death by erotic misadventure.
Noticed how you didn't give numbers.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 22, 2021, 10:56:13 am
I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that.
I don't think we really have, having lived in the deep south for dozens of years.  There are lots of people who dream, not necessarily that "the South shall rise again" but at least  that blacks will be put back in the their place. 

Putting up the statues had a purpose, right?  You laughably suggest that it was for healing and unity, but the consensus of US Civil War historians is that it was about re-assertion of white supremacy.

In either case, if putting the statues up had a purpose, removing them also has a purpose. 
Quote

Seems more like a scapegoat for people's fears and a way for them to get some entertainment in their lives that lets them feel morally superior.

That's not the purpose.  And is a statement beyond ridiculous.  Proving just how morally bereft your argument is.

Quote

Again- The fact that there is more objection to these than from people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE CONFEDERATES, is not a sign of any kind of solid thinking or emotional stability and perspective (I'm referring to people worked up about them, not a simple 10 seconds of thought and supporting removal but not being emotionally invested in it)
This is another factual inaccuracy you keep spouting, but without providing evidence.  You mentioned earlier reunions as if this proved the Union soldiers were fine with what the Confederacy did, or that they didn't mind these statues. 

Firstly, the time period of putting up the first round of these statues was when the CW soldiers were dying off, so a lot of them weren't around to object.  (There was also a surge of statuary in the late 50s and 60s, as the Civil Rights Movement was going.  Coincidence?  Remember too the Rebel flag was only flown on the SC Capitol starting in 1961.  Coincidence?)

Secondly, these reunions as reconciliation has a lot of wishful thinking. 
Quote
"This notion of reconciliation was really just a notion. Reconciliation was something you did on special occasions, but for decades after the war many veterans felt in their heart of hearts visceral hatred and dislike toward their former enemies."
Reunion was about bringing the country back together politically as one nation, but reconciliation was harder to define, and veterans on both sides talked about it differently.
"Does it mean forgiving enemies for their transgressions or does it mean to be silent about differences? Reporters, writers, politicians, veterans and other leaders defined the term differently or left it vague but focused on the valor and bravery of both sides," Janney said. "But publicly, the idea of a reconciled nation was promoted, and often the war generation and their children went along with it for show."
That is Caroline Janney, past president of the Society of Civil War Historians, who knows about 8,000 times more about it than you do.

For example:
Former enemies mostly were cordial with each other, although a number of Union men groused about Confederate veterans who wore lapel pins adorned with a Rebel flag. “That was the flag of treason and rebellion in 1861,” Union veteran John Gobin said in an impromptu speech at a morning campfire gathering on the battlefield, “and it is the flag of treason and rebellion in 1888... I want it distinctly understood now and for all time,” the 51-year-old veteran continued, “that at these reunions it should be remembered and put forth that the men who wore the blue and fought on this field were lastingly and eternally right and the men who wore the gray were lastingly and eternally wrong.”
His audience hollered its approval.
“The General said that the Grand Army of the Republic and the men who wore the blue were disposed to display all kindly feeling and extend the hand of friendship and of assistance to their late antagonists,” the Reading (Pa.) Times wrote of the reunion, “but this ‘gush’ and glorification of a rebel was not elevating in its effects on the youths of the country.”
Concluded the newspaper about Gobin’s speech: “Right, every time, General. Brave words fitly spoken.”
--https://www.historynet.com/heros-welcome-at-gettysburg.htm

You've often been called out for being on the wrong side of history, but we usually mean you'll be shown wrong in the future, but you also that rare gift of being on the wrong side of history that's in the past.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 22, 2021, 02:42:47 pm
I don't think we really have, having lived in the deep south for dozens of years.  There are lots of people who dream, not necessarily that "the South shall rise again" but at least  that blacks will be put back in the their place. 
This would be the same Deep South that has gotten progressively bluer and has voted repeatedly for Republican minority candidates? I think you're assuming that your caricature of who your political opponents are is actually the truth. Are there plenty of racists? Sure. But the South has a bunch of different people living there and you are painting with way too broad of a brush.

Quote
You laughably suggest that it was for healing and unity, but the consensus of US Civil War historians is that it was about re-assertion of white supremacy.

In either case, if putting the statues up had a purpose, removing them also has a purpose.
No, I said that there were a variety of reasons for the statues and you have to look at each. There was certainly an attempt to promote a spirit of national unity  and recognizing bravery on both sides was one to do it. That doesn't exclude the fact that other statues were put up for racist reasons at worst and to push dumb, inaccurate "Lost Cause" mythology at best. But the reasons they were put up and to various degrees tolerated was complicated and encompassed a variety of reasons. Opinion was not monolithic, but overall, the country wanted to move forward, together.

Finally, while it may have had a purpose THEN, when people were alive. That doesn't grant purpose to something being torn down NOW.

Quote
That's not the purpose.  And is a statement beyond ridiculous.  Proving just how morally bereft your argument is.
I'm sorry, but if you're attempting to go after inanimate objects of historical figures that 90% of Americans are ignorant of, yes you are scapegoating and not behaving rationally.

I cant think of about 10,000 different ways to improve race relations and make actual substantive changes that would be better and more effective than tearing down statues.

Quote
This is another factual inaccuracy you keep spouting, but without providing evidence.  You mentioned earlier reunions as if this proved the Union soldiers were fine with what the Confederacy did, or that they didn't mind these statues.

Firstly, the time period of putting up the first round of these statues was when the CW soldiers were dying off, so a lot of them weren't around to object. 
No one said that they were fine with what the Confederacy did, Moving on and reconciling is not the same as accepting the other's argument as valid.

Was there any mass campaign to tear down those statues? If there were Confederates alive when those were erected, then surely there were Union soldiers alive as well. And since the Union had a greater manpower pool, there would be MORE Union veterans alive to object.

Furthermore the fact that people were interested in moving on and reconciliation is evidenced by what happened afterwards. The complete lack of mass trials, hangings, seizure of land, etc. America at the time was, as she is now, a representative democracy. Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.

Quote
That is Caroline Janney, past president of the Society of Civil War Historians, who knows about 8,000 times more about it than you do.
800? Okay Not 8000. Dude, I have read A LOT on the subject. Half my home library is Civil War works.

If she knows 8,000 times more than me, then I know 8,000 times more than you. You were carrying on at one point about civilian political leaders and military leaders being wholly different, whereas anyone who knows anything about the Civil War know they overlap. You should also have known about Lincoln and Grant's desire for generous terms and for reunion. Finally, you'd acknowledge that a decent chunk of the Union army were conscripts and substitutes, particularly as the war dragged on. Yes, volunteers were much more likely to have bitter views and be more passionate about the cause, but plenty of other soldiers were there because they were forced to be or simply to collect a bounty. The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts, who would be shot if they tried to desert. They understood that.

Would you have hatred and loathing towards some 18 year old boy from Georgia who was conscripted?

Quote
“that at these reunions it should be remembered and put forth that the men who wore the blue and fought on this field were lastingly and eternally right and the men who wore the gray were lastingly and eternally wrong.”
Mr. Gobin certainly represented one view, and as he actually fought, I won't begrudge him his view. Others who fought had different views.

It should be noted that during that time people fought for a host of reasons. Not the cause of the war, that was slavery, but why individuals fought. As I said, while you had plenty of volunteers on both sides, amongst those volunteers you had people with serious differences of opinion on race. That's before you get people who volunteered for other reasons- to impress a girl, to prove their manliness, to earn steady money, to have adventure, to loot, to protect a brother or friend, and so on. Then you had the draftees and hired substitutes whose motives varied considerably.

If you take something as big as the Civil War and dumb it down to "All of these guys in the blue were good and all of these guys in the grey were bad" then you're an idiot.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 22, 2021, 02:45:52 pm
You've often been called out for being on the wrong side of history, but we usually mean you'll be shown wrong in the future, but you also that rare gift of being on the wrong side of history that's in the past.

History doesn't have a right or wrong side. It simply has what happened.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 22, 2021, 03:23:06 pm
Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
The only person painting too broad of a brush is you who keeps claiming GAR was fine with Confederate statues without offering a shred of evidence.
You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on".  And that is nonsense.  It was to reassert white supremacy. 
You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years?  You're a fool.
Quote
Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.
True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.

Quote
If you take something as big as the Civil War and dumb it down to "All of these guys in the blue were good and all of these guys in the grey were bad" then you're an idiot.
Not the people per se.  Certainly there were conscripts, and those who fought alongside their brothers and neighbors, and those who believed the lies of the politicians. Um, as I read it you said the South were all conscripts ("The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts")?!  Pretty sure the number comes in as about 90,000 ( https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/ ) of a total 1,000,000 CSA. 

However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 22, 2021, 08:00:17 pm
Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.? In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?

Quote
You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on".  And that is nonsense.  It was to reassert white supremacy.
No, I said that was one reason among many. You are asserting one single reason- Asserting of white supremacy, which you are using in its 21st century context to discuss something that was pretty much believed by most whites, North and South back during that era.

Quote
You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years?  You're a fool.
No, but I think you might be overlooking the degree of change. It's not one blue election. It's been a change across scores of Southern suburbs over the past 20 years.

Quote
True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.
The South wasn't magically not going to be progressive and enlightened overnight. The North too still had massive amounts of racism and defacto segregation across much of it. But what they didn't vote for was for massive retribution or to reignite the conflict. There was no broad support for it.

Quote
Um, as I read it you said the South were all conscripts ("The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts")?!  Pretty sure the number comes in as about 90,000 ( https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/ ) of a total 1,000,000 CSA.
Sorry, I mistyped that. South was primarily volunteers. It should be noted though that the volunteers were impressed for the duration of the conflict after originally signing up for a certain period. Many were not happy about that and had little love for the Southern government after that.

Quote
However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD.
Again, there were a variety of motives that the respective nations fought for. While slavery was the cause and primary motivation, that didn't stop free access of the Mississippi or other concerns from getting tacked on and becoming the focus of some. Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives amongst the civilians, the private soliders, the generals, and the politicians.

As far as statues, lets take statues of Northern leaders. What are your feelings on Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. How do we feel about them? What motives did people have for putting up their statues?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 23, 2021, 07:42:06 am
It should be noted that during that time people fought for a host of reasons. Not the cause of the war, that was slavery, but why individuals fought.

From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 23, 2021, 12:13:23 pm
Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.?
I don't get the significance of this list.  These were CSA generals who resumed their lives and either did or did not have a political career ...
Quote
In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?
So you think the rules for the losers of a war should also apply to the winners?  I guess that's why I saw Patton at Nureumberg.
Quote
No, I said that was one reason among many. You are asserting one single reason- Asserting of white supremacy, which you are using in its 21st century context to discuss something that was pretty much believed by most whites, North and South back during that era.
While it's certainly true Jim Crow was a national cancer, and racism today exists north and south (I myself participated in counter-protests to Nazi marches in Skokie, Ill  c. 1980), it was far more institutional in the south.
Quote
No, but I think you might be overlooking the degree of change. It's not one blue election. It's been a change across scores of Southern suburbs over the past 20 years.
But due to demographic change, which is my point!
Quote
The South wasn't magically not going to be progressive and enlightened overnight. The North too still had massive amounts of racism and defacto segregation across much of it. But what they didn't vote for was for massive retribution or to reignite the conflict. There was no broad support for it.
Sorry, I mistyped that. South was primarily volunteers. It should be noted though that the volunteers were impressed for the duration of the conflict after originally signing up for a certain period. Many were not happy about that and had little love for the Southern government after that.
Again, there were a variety of motives that the respective nations fought for. While slavery was the cause and primary motivation, that didn't stop free access of the Mississippi or other concerns from getting tacked on and becoming the focus of some. Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives amongst the civilians, the private soliders, the generals, and the politicians.
Gosh, thanks for that.
Quote
As far as statues, lets take statues of Northern leaders. What are your feelings on Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. How do we feel about them? What motives did people have for putting up their statues?
Hmm.  Lincoln has a whole monument, doesn't he?  I think I might have seen it somewhere.  Lincoln was the sixteenth President--don't we always put up a monument to the 16th one of something?  Like, aren't there Tennessee statues everywhere, because it was the sixteenth state?  And I know  we have statues of Neil Armstrong all over, because he was the sixteenth American in space.  Right?  You know, along with David Scott, on Gemini 8.  But the point is he was #16.  And that's why we put up monuments.  Sometimes for multiples of 16, like not too far from the Lincoln memorial in old DC, is one for the 32nd President, FDR, just because, you know, 32 is 16 times 2.  The reason we put statues of horses all over the place (no matter who is riding them) is because the Denver Broncos won Superbowl 32, and a bronco (technically, I don't know if you knew this) but technically a bronco is a horse.  Superbowl 32 is 2 times Superbowl 16.  Did I answer your question?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 23, 2021, 02:40:21 pm
I don't get the significance of this list.  These were CSA generals who resumed their lives and either did or did not have a political career ..
If a Confederate General had engaged in a political act enabling secession, such as being part of the legislature and casting votes for it or in drafting the Confederate Constitution or in serving the Confederate government, are they a political figure or a military figure?

Quote
So you think the rules for the losers of a war should also apply to the winners?  I guess that's why I saw Patton at Nureumberg.
Actually if you knew anything about Nuremburg, you'd know that one of the reasons Karl Donitz was not sentenced for war crimes for unrestricted submarine warfare was because they established that the Allies had done the same thing.

And yes, in a just world, the rules regarding war crimes, motivations, etc. would at the very least hold the winners to some level of accountability as well and acknowledge that simply losing did not make someone immoral.

Quote
it was far more institutional in the south.
That's true. It's also 2021.

Quote
But due to demographic change, which is my point!
And attitude change. You claim that there are rampant racists and white nationalists everywhere. Sorry, but the white nationalists are an isolated fringe. The overwhelming majority of even arch-Trump supporters reject slavery and white supremacy.

Quote
Hmm.  Lincoln has a whole monument, doesn't he?  I think I might have seen it somewhere.  Lincoln was the sixteenth President--don't we always put up a monument to the 16th one of something?  Like, aren't there Tennessee statues everywhere, because it was the sixteenth state?  And I know  we have statues of Neil Armstrong all over, because he was the sixteenth American in space.  Right?  You know, along with David Scott, on Gemini 8.  But the point is he was #16.  And that's why we put up monuments.  Sometimes for multiples of 16, like not too far from the Lincoln memorial in old DC, is one for the 32nd President, FDR, just because, you know, 32 is 16 times 2.  The reason we put statues of horses all over the place (no matter who is riding them) is because the Denver Broncos won Superbowl 32, and a bronco (technically, I don't know if you knew this) but technically a bronco is a horse.  Superbowl 32 is 2 times Superbowl 16.  Did I answer your question?
I think you knew where I was going with my point of statues for Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer.

Rather than address it and its very real relevance, you instead chose to do this. A clear sign of cognitive dissonance. You know that your position is horribly inconsistent and hypocritical and your "It's all because of white supremacy" argument will collapse when you address this point. But rather than gamely try your best, you do this.

Do you support statues to Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer? Civil War veterans of course.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 23, 2021, 06:17:39 pm
From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.

Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 23, 2021, 07:42:12 pm
From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.
Sounds like Southern revisionism.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on February 24, 2021, 08:27:37 am
First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

where did kyndo state or imply that the war was started by the north?

besides, he's right. pretending that the union cared about slavery primarily as a humanitarian issue rather than as a way to get one up over the south is buying into "american exceptionalism" propoganda and whatnot. even back in the days of ol' abe lincoln, we weren't that clean.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on February 24, 2021, 08:38:36 am
Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments.  :sad:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 24, 2021, 11:15:28 am
Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.
Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 25, 2021, 12:21:18 am
Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.

You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.

The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.

Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 

Partially explain their behavior, indeed!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 25, 2021, 03:43:47 am
Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments.  :sad:

It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 10:42:54 am
It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.
That's not what he said. It's not his fault you have a hard time with nuance and tend to disregard qualifiers when reading.

His point was that there are reasons why they supported slavery beyond white supremacy and there were economic factors as well that were adjacent or underlying motivations.

Here is a parallel- The Iraq War was about WMDs and terror. However there were various other motives alongside it by various parties. Some had visions of mass reform across the region. Others no doubt were thinking of oil. Meanwhile Saddam fought for whatever reason, but it was not WMDs, Terror, oil, and only somewhat over Mideast reform.

While I do think the Civil War was much more about its core cause and the gusts of popular feeling that led to the war reflected that, that doesn't mean the powerful weren't looking at their pocketbooks, as they always do.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 10:53:10 am
You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.
This warrants a separate reply.

I don't study history with the objective of judging things through the lens of my 20th-21st century morals and to look for people and countries to declare as good guys and bad guys, and which should have been supported.

I think that is a terrible way to study history and will cause you to not pay attention to facts and begin to craft things to fit a narrative. Once your mind decides certain parties were "good" or "bad" you will disregard anything that doesn't fit that filter one way or the other.

It seems you view history through some sort of grand moral or narrative arc and that above all you use the moral filter to interpret it. That's fine in some ways, but it is dangerous when it comes to factual understanding.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 11:26:54 am
Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.
They weren't that far off. In establishing their various empires the other nations had certainly done some things. The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese had collectively mass depopulated two continents, and repeatedly broken treaties in doing so. They also used biological warfare. They also used race-based slavery in doing so. They also colonized pretty much everyone else and would have no qualms about doing so.

In the 1930s Their peoples and their leaders were overtly racist and even had the supremacy of white people enshrined by law. They had seen Armritsar and Stalin and the Indian Wars.

That is the world they lived in- The world of 1932 and the history that had preceded it. A world where the "nice guys" ruled across the glove and the others had Jim Crow. You have to put their actions into context which is the world they lived in and how it did business.

Quote
The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.
Japan felt it needed 70% to achieve Naval parity. They were given 60%. It also saw their ally outright disregard them in favor of a cultural and racial brother. They now had far less incentive to play by international norms. These promises of order and friendship would look hollow. What appeared to matter was power and every nation being out for themselves.

Were they some noble lot who weren't also playing the game themselves? Of course not, but the system and its norms now looked like mere tools for power rather than a genuine attempt at a brotherhood of nations. The message was, as interpretes by them- "We have the rights to empire and the benefits, you do not."

And what did they expect to happen with the next round of treaties?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 11:29:35 am
Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 
That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 25, 2021, 01:24:56 pm
That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.
"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 02:54:33 pm
Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.
Also, those two examples you listed I would look at with a skeptical eye. If you can't read that and strongly detect the high probability of bullsh*t and exaggeration in that story, then you are a sap. Do those stories really pass the sniff test?

Where exactly is this company or battalion of Japanese soldiers that is being organized as some sort of industrial granny rape assembly line? How are these soldiers getting it up for this? Is there just a line of soldiers who decided that the with the run of the city, the best thing they could do was industrial rape 60-80 year old snatch?

And how are these soldiers playing soccer with heads attached to 40 lb. children bodies? Oh that's right every 120 lb. Japanese soldier knows Ninja-Fu and can kick 40 lbs. around like they're Kevin DeBruyne.

You realize in WWI there were claims that German soldiers were eating Belgian babies, right? I'm not saying the Rape of Nanking didn't happen or that it wasn't horrific, just that you don't have to believe some of the more outlandish claims and you should probably refrain from using them if you want to make a serious point.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 25, 2021, 02:59:05 pm
"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.
That wasn't the logical conclusion of my argument.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 25, 2021, 06:10:26 pm
Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict.

Then why did you say "From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli." Maybe what you meant was that the preservation of slavery was a proxy excuse for a casus belli, because it was the South that started the war. Which you knew. Obviously.

And yes, the Civil War was about economic issues, namely slavery. And it was about economic oppression by the North, because the North wanted to end slavery, which was the only way the South thought it could survive economically. And it was about state's rights, namely the false state right to own slaves.

Quote
When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things

You're not from America, are you? Because any American high schooler who pays attention in class is taught with clear evidence that this was actually the whole basis of the Confederacy. You really seem attached to blatant revisionism and maybe as a non-American you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of right-winger who convinces themself that racism doesn't exist because they can't admit that institutional racism is real and powerful.

Didn't think I'd see Kyndo making excuses for slavery or proud Korean DeMartino making excuses for the Rape of Nanking. You guys have problems. Read a book, kyndo. As for Martin:

(https://media.tenor.com/images/f5c62f1f4056e5361b136aeef8d0f7c2/tenor.gif)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 25, 2021, 07:32:42 pm
That's a heck of a lot of neo-Confederate blather. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 26, 2021, 02:06:20 am
And yes, the Civil War was about economic issues, namely slavery. And it was about economic oppression by the North, because the North wanted to end slavery, which was the only way the South thought it could survive economically. And it was about state's rights, namely the false state right to own slaves.
Imagine having the kind of brain that views an entire nation/region of 25 million as a singular monolith driven by a single purpose. Slavery was the cause. That is different from what individual's goals and motives were. Do you understand the differences between these things or are you unable to do so and instead just lump them all together because trying to understand that is too difficult?

Quote
You're not from America, are you? Because any American high schooler who pays attention in class is taught with clear evidence that this was actually the whole basis of the Confederacy. You really seem attached to blatant revisionism and maybe as a non-American you don't realize this. I'm pretty sure you're not the kind of right-winger who convinces themself that racism doesn't exist because they can't admit that institutional racism is real and powerful.
Or maybe, and I know this is a real hard concept for you to grasp- Maybe YOU didn't understand the point he was making and overlooked the nuance of his argument.

You know, it is possible for YOU MayorHaggar to make a mistake. Do you accept that as a possibility?

Quote
Didn't think I'd see Kyndo making excuses for slavery or proud Korean DeMartino making excuses for the Rape of Nanking. You guys have problems. Read a book, kyndo. As for Martin:
Thankfully neither of us did such a thing.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 27, 2021, 05:28:09 am
Quote
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1] negationist ideology that advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. This ideology has furthered the belief that slavery was just and moral, because the enslaved were happy, even grateful, and it also brought economic prosperity. The notion was used to perpetuate racism and racist power structures during the Jim Crow era in the American South.[2] It emphasizes the supposed chivalric virtues of the antebellum South. It thus views the war as a struggle primarily waged to save the Southern way of life[3] and to protect "states' rights", especially the right to secede from the Union. It casts that attempt as faced with "overwhelming Northern aggression". At the same time, it minimizes or completely denies the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the build-up to, and outbreak of, the war.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/f5c62f1f4056e5361b136aeef8d0f7c2/tenor.gif)

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: VanIslander on February 27, 2021, 06:01:06 am
Skip the personal insults guys.

Attack the ideas, not the person.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 27, 2021, 06:25:43 am
South Carolina secession statement:

Quote
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

Mississippi secession statement:

Quote
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin

Louisiana:

Quote
The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Texas:

Quote
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law.

Martin:

"See what they actually meant was..."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 27, 2021, 08:51:35 am
South Carolina secession statement:

Mississippi secession statement:

Louisiana:

Texas:

Martin:

"See what they actually meant was..."
All of that is true. None of that contradicts the point we were making.

For like the 10th time: Slavery was the cause of the war. That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons, motives and goals for other parties. It also doesn't address why INDIVIDUALS fought. Their reasons are often less political.

You are arguing a point no one is trying to make.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 27, 2021, 03:21:18 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.
"While the causes of the Vietnam War were Vietnamese unity and American engagement against Communism, some people had other motives. Some wanted to see American weapon systems used and for arm sales. Also, the Kennedys and later LBJ were deeply concerned about past appeasement that led to WWII."

"You're supporting American Supremacy!"

Just because additional factors have been used by SOME for nefarious purposes does not mean that every mention of additional factors is in service of white supremacy.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 27, 2021, 04:50:54 pm
Individuals don't use terms like casus belli or secession statement. Nobody was talking about individuals. In any case if you look at individual quotes by Southern generals, politicians and soldiers, you'd overwhelmingly see them stating over and over again that they fought to preserve slavery. But you're not going to do that because you're a contrarian defending the indefensible.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 27, 2021, 10:54:54 pm
All of that is true. None of that contradicts the point we were making.

For like the 10th time: Slavery was the cause of the war. That doesn't mean that there weren't other reasons, motives and goals for other parties. It also doesn't address why INDIVIDUALS fought. Their reasons are often less political.

Their reasons are NOT often less political, and you have done NOTHING to show otherwise.  You just keep saying it without an iota of evidence. You don't even list any of these theoretical reasons, you just say that there are.  You just say things like "Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives". 

Of course and obviously that's true--someone might join because his big brother did, for example.  And maybe 10% were conscripted.  But to make your point that the VAST MAJORITY didn't join for the reasons everyone else and the consensus of all Civil War historians agrees (slavery)  you need literally 50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  You really really need that, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. 

And I realize this is a bar you can't hurdle, because your statement is BS.

Indeed, practically everything you've written in this thread is BS, and some of it so shameful, anti-historical and blatantly immoral that I have had to remove your quote about how good I am from my .sig line, that's how disgusting your arguments have become.  I don't want to be associated with you.  Seriously.  You need to stop and have a look in the mirror.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on February 28, 2021, 02:07:57 am
Speaking of Marti and bullsh*t. I doubt anyone has forgotten his description of the Jan 6th insurrection as a hapless bunch of cosplay folk just letting off steam.  :laugh:
It's quite a contrast form the former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund who said in testimony at a recent senate investigation.

Quote
"We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style coordinated assault."

But what would that police chief know compared to our local world renowned expert on everything; Marti.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-senate-police-intelligence/2021/02/23/bd4cba38-75d7-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on February 28, 2021, 12:47:41 pm
Good to see all these people on the left suddenly deciding to accept everything the US police say as gospel
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 28, 2021, 01:39:48 pm
Speaking of Marti and bullsh*t. I doubt anyone has forgotten his description of the Jan 6th insurrection as a hapless bunch of cosplay folk just letting off steam.  :laugh:
It's quite a contrast form the former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund who said in testimony at a recent senate investigation.

But what would that police chief know compared to our local world renowned expert on everything; Marti.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-senate-police-intelligence/2021/02/23/bd4cba38-75d7-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html
How can it be a military-style coordinated assault if there was

A) No coordination
B) No discipline
C) No organized units or ranks
D) No heavy weapons
E) From what I can tell they didn't fire any shots

If you look at the Capital Riot and Horn Guy and think "military-style assault" you are an idiot.

Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority? Notice how you say nothing about actual military equipment or techniques?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 28, 2021, 02:06:54 pm
Of course and obviously that's true--someone might join because his big brother did, for example.  And maybe 10% were conscripted.  But to make your point that the VAST MAJORITY didn't join for the reasons everyone else and the consensus of all Civil War historians agrees (slavery)  you need literally 50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  You really really need that, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. 
Mr. C, I don't think you quite understand the world of 1861. You seem to treat people there like its 2021 and they have 50 different outlets for information and a public education system that has offered a consistent message of tolerance. When you examine history, I don't think you do a good job of putting yourself in the mindset of people back then and how profoundly different the world was.

Second, your assertion that "most of them fought for slavery" is surprising considering the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves. For the 11billionth time, that doesn't mean slavery wasn't the cause. But I doubt that many would be willing to march barefoot in the blazing sun, eat rancid meat, be covered in lice, and get repeatedly shot at, simply so some dandy could keep his slaves.

Did some fight for slavery? Undoubtedly and no one here has disagreed. But for some reason you guys took "The cause of the war was slavery. Also there were lots of complex factors and individual motivations." Which btw, IS a mainstream historical view, and turned it into "You guys are apologizing for the Confederacy and supporting white supremacy."

Quote
Indeed, practically everything you've written in this thread is BS, and some of it so shameful, anti-historical and blatantly immoral that I have had to remove your quote about how good I am from my .sig line, that's how disgusting your arguments have become.  I don't want to be associated with you.  Seriously.  You need to stop and have a look in the mirror.
Dude, calm down. I'm sorry Mr. C, but you seem to really have a problem with looking at politics dispassionately. I think you apply way to much of a moral filter, which coincidentally happens to coincide with your views, and it really causes you to get angry and unfocused.

Nothing I wrote was shameful, anti-historical, or immoral. You took minor disagreements over the degree to which something was or was not something and blew it way out of proportion.

At present in this thread me and Kyndo have been accused of perpetuating white supremacy. That's right, the Korea Apologist and kyndo the mod. White Supremacists. Having been accused of such by regular Korea bashers MayorHaggar and Adel, who have written some atrocious things about Koreans in the past.

Shouldn't this be a sign that maybe YOU are the one off-base? Maybe YOU are the one that needs to pause and take a look around and look at the arguments being made and who your compatriots are.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 28, 2021, 02:08:06 pm
Individuals don't use terms like casus belli or secession statement. Nobody was talking about individuals. In any case if you look at individual quotes by Southern generals, politicians and soldiers, you'd overwhelmingly see them stating over and over again that they fought to preserve slavery. But you're not going to do that because you're a contrarian defending the indefensible.
This is based on what? Your extensive reading of Civil War literature?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 28, 2021, 03:13:02 pm
Mr. C, I don't think you quite understand the world of 1861. You seem to treat people there like its 2021 and they have 50 different outlets for information and a public education system that has offered a consistent message of tolerance. When you examine history, I don't think you do a good job of putting yourself in the mindset of people back then and how profoundly different the world was.

Second, your assertion that "most of them fought for slavery" is surprising considering the overwhelming majority of Southerners did not own slaves. For the 11billionth time, that doesn't mean slavery wasn't the cause. But I doubt that many would be willing to march barefoot in the blazing sun, eat rancid meat, be covered in lice, and get repeatedly shot at, simply so some dandy could keep his slaves.

Did some fight for slavery? Undoubtedly and no one here has disagreed. But for some reason you guys took "The cause of the war was slavery. Also there were lots of complex factors and individual motivations." Which btw, IS a mainstream historical view, and turned it into "You guys are apologizing for the Confederacy and supporting white supremacy."
Dude, calm down. I'm sorry Mr. C, but you seem to really have a problem with looking at politics dispassionately. I think you apply way to much of a moral filter, which coincidentally happens to coincide with your views, and it really causes you to get angry and unfocused.

Nothing I wrote was shameful, anti-historical, or immoral. You took minor disagreements over the degree to which something was or was not something and blew it way out of proportion.

At present in this thread me and Kyndo have been accused of perpetuating white supremacy. That's right, the Korea Apologist and kyndo the mod. White Supremacists. Having been accused of such by regular Korea bashers MayorHaggar and Adel, who have written some atrocious things about Koreans in the past.

Shouldn't this be a sign that maybe YOU are the one off-base? Maybe YOU are the one that needs to pause and take a look around and look at the arguments being made and who your compatriots are.

50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  Unless and until, buh-bye.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Savant on February 28, 2021, 05:22:14 pm
Poor Marty, all over the shop with his jumbled up narrative. Letting all the voices in his head speak at the same time.

"It was slavery! Oh yes, sir!"
"It was slavery but..."
"Not every Southerner had slaves so.."
"You guys need to take off your filters!"
"I stick to the facts and truth!"

Something in your head is broken.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on February 28, 2021, 07:13:21 pm
50,000 diary entries from CSA stating specific non-slavery-related/non-political reasons for fighting.  Unless and until, buh-bye.
Would 100,000 deserters count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Desertion

Anyways, what exactly is grinding your gears? My claim that a good chunk of people who fought on both sides did so for reasons beyond the primary cause of the war? Is that really controversial?

I think you're pulling a Cathy Newman- "So what you're really saying is..." I think your issue is more personal than actual contents. I think if one of the more established posters on here that you don't have an issue said what I said, you wouldn't be nearly as upset. You might disagree, but you wouldn't be declaring them to be immoral. I think you're letting this personal grudge you have against me affect what you read of mine.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on February 28, 2021, 07:26:54 pm
Good to see all these people on the left suddenly deciding to accept everything the US police say as gospel

I thought the right loved cops? Oh that's right, now they murder them when they try to prevent the assassination of politicians.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on February 28, 2021, 07:28:29 pm
Would 100,000 deserters count?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Army#Desertion
Obviously not, duh!  Those are reasons they LEFT, not reasons they joined.  How can one person be so wrong about so much so often?!

And here's a quote from that same page that you didn't bother to mention:
"Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.  Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."  — James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

The fact you had plentiful evidence that your argument is flawed right there on the page you referred, and failed to mention it is just further proof of your status as this forum's foremost bad faith participant. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 28, 2021, 09:14:18 pm
How can it be a military-style coordinated assault if there was

A) No coordination
B) No discipline
C) No organized units or ranks
D) No heavy weapons
E) From what I can tell they didn't fire any shots

If you look at the Capital Riot and Horn Guy and think "military-style assault" you are an idiot.

Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority? Notice how you say nothing about actual military equipment or techniques?
Is that you Ron Johnson?

A B and C are patently false.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on February 28, 2021, 09:18:45 pm
"CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan ventured out to California recently and spoke to QAnon believers who are convinced Trump will be back in the White House very soon as a result of a deadly military coup that they fully support.

“This whole thing with Biden… he’s like a puppet president. The military is in charge. It’s going to be like Myanmar… The military is doing their own investigation. And at the right time, they’re going to be restoring the republic with Trump as president,” one woman said.

O’Sullivan asked other attendees if they’d like to see Biden forcefully removed from office by the military, one man replied, “Absolutely.”

In Myanmar, one woman said, “The government took over and now they redoing the election.”

O’Sullivan then asked, “Would you like to see [a coup] happen?”

“I would like to see it,” one man replied.

The potential remains, especially with many in the GOP seeing those who support violence as their only road to continued relevance. So they continue with the lie that the election was stolen.

"We didn't lose the game. The refs stole it from us."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 01:53:33 am
Obviously not, duh!  Those are reasons they LEFT, not reasons they joined.  How can one person be so wrong about so much so often?!

And here's a quote from that same page that you didn't bother to mention:
"Slavery was less salient for most Confederate soldiers because it was not controversial. They took slavery for granted as one of the Southern 'rights' and institutions for which they fought, and did not feel compelled to discuss it.  Although only 20 percent of the soldiers avowed explicit proslavery purposes in their letters and diaries, none at all dissented from that view."  — James M. McPherson, For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War

The fact you had plentiful evidence that your argument is flawed right there on the page you referred, and failed to mention it is just further proof of your status as this forum's foremost bad faith participant. 
McPherson is entitled to his view. However he makes what I would consider a questionable decision- That not being opposed to something equates to fighting for it. If someone is willing to risk volunteering to march, fight and die, and these were men who had no problem voicing their opinions, then why wouldn't they explicitly say so? Why not let the reason they say stand as their reason? 20% made it clear they were fighting for slavery. 80% did not. Lets be generous and say double those who talked about it were motivated. That would still leave 60% not. I think double is about the limit where you can attempt to mind-read. After that, you are really wading into dangerous territory and ignoring what is in front of you and then projecting.

And finally- What are you so wound up about? You're acting like not having a completely unnuanced black-white position on this is supporting white supremacy.

This all goes back to the assertion that in the year 2021, in the Age of Tiktok and Instagram, that a statue is influencing people and should be the object of our wrath.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 01:56:25 am
"CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan ventured out to California recently and spoke to QAnon believers who are convinced Trump will be back in the White House very soon as a result of a deadly military coup that they fully support.

“This whole thing with Biden… he’s like a puppet president. The military is in charge. It’s going to be like Myanmar… The military is doing their own investigation. And at the right time, they’re going to be restoring the republic with Trump as president,” one woman said.

O’Sullivan asked other attendees if they’d like to see Biden forcefully removed from office by the military, one man replied, “Absolutely.”

In Myanmar, one woman said, “The government took over and now they redoing the election.”

O’Sullivan then asked, “Would you like to see [a coup] happen?”

“I would like to see it,” one man replied.

The potential remains, especially with many in the GOP seeing those who support violence as their only road to continued relevance. So they continue with the lie that the election was stolen.

"We didn't lose the game. The refs stole it from us."
Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know this?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 01:59:48 am
I thought the right loved cops? Oh that's right, now they murder them when they try to prevent the assassination of politicians.
Still no CoD made by the coroner. Going to be a tough case.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/fbi-identify-suspect-sicknick/index.html
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 01, 2021, 03:33:52 am
Still no CoD made by the coroner. Going to be a tough case.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/26/politics/fbi-identify-suspect-sicknick/index.html

Is it your expert medical opinion that Officer Sicknick still has a pulse Marti?  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 05:13:11 am
Is it your expert medical opinion that Officer Sicknick still has a pulse Marti?  :laugh:
Care to explain how you'd manage to get murder charges to stick if you have no CoD?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 01, 2021, 06:02:47 am
Care to explain how you'd manage to get murder charges to stick if you have no CoD?

Here's a tip Marti.  Rather than relying a CNN report, perhaps you could wait for the conclusion of the medical examiner's report. After that I'm sure you'll find a different focus for your gaslighting!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on March 01, 2021, 06:11:52 am
They'll get a COD when they figure out which of Martin's Qanon buddies struck the blow that killed Sicknick. Martin probably believes that he accidentally slipped and fell to his death, Russian journalist style.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on March 01, 2021, 08:31:34 am
You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.

First off, I think you're wrong that the cause for the civil war was 100% about ethical qualms regarding slavery.
The South didn't care one way another: they seceded from the union and ended up attacking the North to protect their right to enslave others because it was the basis of their economy. Defending the institution of slavery was the casus belli, but protecting the southern economy was an important underlying reason for doing so.
 
Secondly, I think this is a deliberate and pretty untransparent attempting to misconstrue comments as being pro-slavery when they *very clearly* are not.
I know we have differences in opinions on how threads ought to be moderated, but I would much prefer that you address them directly rather than like this.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on March 01, 2021, 09:41:54 am
Okay, let me be direct:

a) the Southern economy was slavery. Any economic issue about the South has to be about slavery. Maybe think for a minute about why tariffs on labor-intensive industries would affect the South more than the North.

b) you were making common revisionist statements where you tried to take the focus away from slavery. I'm not sure you realized you were doing this, but you are. Again, do some reading about the subject. Please.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 01, 2021, 11:46:13 am
McPherson is entitled to his view. However he makes what I would consider a questionable decision- That not being opposed to something equates to fighting for it.

Wow, for someone who keeps whining about people twisting his words, you sure are quick to do it to others.  That is not at all what he said.
Quote

 If someone is willing to risk volunteering to march, fight and die, and these were men who had no problem voicing their opinions, then why wouldn't they explicitly say so?

As the Civil War expert said--not you, the one with the Pulitzer Prize for a Civil War book, who is past president of the American Historical Society, and first recipient of  the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award for lifetime achievement in military history--because it was understood

Similarly, I'm led to understand that Mafiosi don't sit around reminding each other, "Y'know, this strong-arm protection racket of ours is illegal."  It is understood.

You keep talking about all these Civil War books you have. A) If you can just wave away what is said very clearly and specifically by one of the utmost experts in the field, why mention all those books?  B) You got those 50,000 quotes yet--not "beyond" slavery as you tried to weasel in, but instead of?  C) Have you bothered to read those books?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 01, 2021, 11:56:33 am


Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority?

You mean like how you say stuff like "You clearly haven't read much on the subject"  and keep mentioning your large library of Civil War books?  That kind of argument from authority?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Kyndo on March 01, 2021, 12:16:38 pm
Okay, let me be direct:

a) the Southern economy was slavery. Any economic issue about the South has to be about slavery. Maybe think for a minute about why tariffs on labor-intensive industries would affect the South more than the North.
Right.
 - Tariffs on labour intensive industries would affect the South more strongly than the North. It's why those tariffs were created, right?
 -The north was far more industrialized than the south. Putting tariffs on cotton etc would give the North a strong advantage over the South when dealing with the lucrative European markets.
 - The abolitionist movement along with the new tariffs threatened the economic viability of the South.
 - The South seceded to protect it's institution of slavery, their source of economic power.
 - The civil war was about slavery, which in turn was about the South trying to hold on to its source of wealth.

I'm not certain exactly which of the above points you take issue with. It seems like most everything I've read lays it out like this.

b) you were making common revisionist statements where you tried to take the focus away from slavery. I'm not sure you realized you were doing this, but you are. Again, do some reading about the subject. Please.
 
Ah.
I agree that the issue of slavery is the defining principle behind the conflict in the American Civil, and if it seemed like I was trying to debate that, then I apologize for being unclear.
What I was trying to point out was that the reasons slavery was so important to the *South* were economic ones, which made the conflict, in essence, about competing economics.

As for revisionism: actively trying to obscure/rewrite history is like erasing science. Gross.

  I would honestly consider reading more on the topic, as it seems interesting and it wasn't something we were ever required to study in school. What would you recommend as a good place to start (other than Wiki)?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 06:50:58 pm
Here's a tip Marti.  Rather than relying a CNN report, perhaps you could wait for the conclusion of the medical examiner's report. After that I'm sure you'll find a different focus for your gaslighting!  :laugh:
Doesn't "Wait for the ME's report" apply both ways?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 06:52:58 pm
They'll get a COD when they figure out which of Martin's Qanon buddies struck the blow that killed Sicknick. Martin probably believes that he accidentally slipped and fell to his death, Russian journalist style.
Actually the preliminary ME'a report, per CNN ruled out blunt force trauma.

But don't let facts like that get in the way of things.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 01, 2021, 06:54:34 pm
You mean like how you say stuff like "You clearly haven't read much on the subject"  and keep mentioning your large library of Civil War books?  That kind of argument from authority?
I mean I think that kind of applies when you arent even aware of political generals.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 01, 2021, 08:06:34 pm
I mean I think that kind of applies when you arent even aware of political generals.

Pffft, whatever.  If they were "covered" by Appomattox, they were generals.  Davis and Stephens were not generals--that's the distinction I was making and you know it.  But you argue in bad faith here, as too often. 

Let's not forget that this whole subthread is related (as fka points out above) to the violent neo-Nazis, Rebel-flag wavers, Proud Bois (sic), etc who were motivated to march to protect a statue that you think you no one cares about at all. 

Why aren't we trying to tear down statues of Lincoln? you pathetically asked before, calling him a CW "veteran".  I mocked your question, because it is deserving of mockery.  The obvious answer is that he did not go to war to support the vile institution of slavery.  He did so to keep the Republic together. 

I know you're going to say that many people of the time didn't think it was vile.  But those people were wrong, both in our view and in the view of many many others of the time (thus the war, which we have seen that quite a lot of Union soldiers felt was a moral war against slavery--assuming you read your own cite, much less ones I provided).

Washington and Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers kept slaves.  Yes, they did (having been to both of their estates, I can confirm).  And it was wrong.  And at least some of them who kept slaves knew it was wrong, but did not have the courage of their convictions, lest they face the ruin of their personal economy.  But they didn't fight the Revolutionary War to protect slavery, did they? 

Hell, they didn't even go to war because their taxes were too high.   However, their reasons were righteous, both to many at the time and many today.  I'm sure we can at least agree on that.  That said, I can't really bring myself to care what you think anymore.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 02, 2021, 12:09:58 pm
Pffft, whatever.  If they were "covered" by Appomattox, they were generals.  Davis and Stephens were not generals--that's the distinction I was making and you know it.  But you argue in bad faith here, as too often. 
Appomattox only applied to the soldiers directly under Lee's command. Also, again, and you don't really seem to grasp this, the people who enabled the Confederacy politically, many went on to serve in the Confederate military. James Kemper, for example, served simultaneously as Virginia Speaker and a general in the Confederate Army.

How do you treat them? As a politician or a general?

Although we had largely moved on from the era of kings and nobles leading troops on the battlefield, there were still these lingering notions of honor (or outright greed for fame and status) that caused many politicians to join the army and lead their troops into battle, at the front of their lines. The line between politician and general was not as clearly delineated then as it is now.

Quote
to the violent neo-Nazis, Rebel-flag wavers, Proud Bois (sic), etc who were motivated to march to protect a statue that you think you no one cares about at all.
And according to the polls, something like 50% of Americans who think they shouldn't be torn down either, but hey, ignore them and focus on Nazis if you must.

People wouldn't care if it was just left there to rust. But try to whip up a campaign to go after everything and people will get defensive. It's like Tiger Stadium- Shabby attendance, then it was announced that it would be torn down and suddenly there was a massive wail that went up.

Quote
Why aren't we trying to tear down statues of Lincoln? you pathetically asked before, calling him a CW "veteran"
Never called him a veteran. I don't think you got my point with that question.

Quote
The obvious answer is that he did not go to war to support the vile institution of slavery.  He did so to keep the Republic together.
Shall we ask the Apache and the Navajo about Mr. Lincoln? If you're going to blast these statues for supporting "white supremacy" then put your money where your mouth is. Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan supported white supremacy and fought for it as well, just not towards blacks but towards the Native peoples. you call them heroes, but while these "heroes" were fighting the Confederacy, they were raging a war of conquest bordering on extermination against the Native peoples.

What about the Mexican War?  A war that was little more than a bald-faced landgrab and a war U.S. Grant himself thought wicked (although he fought in it anyways- if its okay for him to fight for a wicked cause, then...).

Mr. C, I don't think you've really thought this through or really stopped to consider the can of worms this opens up.

Quote
But they didn't fight the Revolutionary War to protect slavery, did they?
Well, that's debatable and a significant amount of modern scholarship seems to be pointing in the direction that yes, at least some were motivated to ensure slavery's continuation. The writing was already on the wall regarding slavery in the British Empire.

There's a reason slaves overwhelmingly supported the British.

Quote
However, their reasons were righteous, both to many at the time and many today.  I'm sure we can at least agree on that.
Again, this need to view history through the lens of "good guys vs. bad guys." What is your obsession with finding good and evil in history?

I really can't agree because your concept of history seems to be a narrative one, and that is simply a view of history I don't accept. History is what happened and what didn't and often involved a host of motives and interests, some of which were conflicted or muddled or haphazard or simply a response to various events. That's not to say I don't admire or cheer for certain sides, but when I think when taking a serious look at history, we have to set that aside for the moment. We can certainly pick it up again, but I think we're doing more than simple cheering right now.

I hope their reasons were righteous. I think they probably were, but I don't want to mind-read too much.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 02, 2021, 12:11:23 pm
Also, again..

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 02, 2021, 12:22:30 pm

And according to the polls, something like 50% of Americans who think they shouldn't be torn down either, but hey, ignore them and focus on Nazis if you must.
10 years ago, something like 50% of Americans thought gay marriage should be illegal.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 02, 2021, 04:36:45 pm
10 years ago, something like 50% of Americans thought gay marriage should be illegal.
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

I guess you could make some libertarian taxation or endorsement argument.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: stoat on March 02, 2021, 04:39:31 pm
Only one in six Black British people think toppling statues is a good idea.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/84-of-black-britons-reject-toppling-statues-w2v5hf9f8
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 02, 2021, 04:50:05 pm
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

I guess you could make some libertarian taxation or endorsement argument.
Well, the point was about how polls change,

But I don't want the statues to be destroyed, they belong in a museum.  /Indiana Jones
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: MayorHaggar on March 02, 2021, 06:16:50 pm
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

The right to not live in a country that venerates murderous white supremacy.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 03:04:19 am
The right to not live in a country that venerates murderous white supremacy.
The U.S. is already such a place. Seriously, if you think it actually is, even with the statues, you need to lay off the internet and actually get out in the real world.

Claiming the U.S. is venerating white supremacy is an insult to millions of people around the world who deal with REAL crushing ethnic violence. That's not to say there aren't serious issues with racism in the U.S. but there's a reason why people aren't fleeing the U.S. en masse as refugees from ethnic violence. Like, if the U.S. were such a horribly racist place, wouldn't we see black people overwhelmingly moving AWAY from white areas and into predominantly black ones?

Like you guys could easily make a sensible, rational argument for statue removal, instead you go with the most dramatic, over-the-top view of the issue that makes the U.S. seem like 1990s Bosnia on steroids. Same with the Capitol riot.

Like you ever think of going with maybe 5/10 or 6/10 instead of 11/10?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 03, 2021, 04:37:37 am
The weaker the argument, the more foolish the questions asked to support it.

The facts continue to speak, no matter how much those on the right lie and obfuscate.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 09:16:38 am
AGAIN-

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 09:22:45 am

DeMartino: "You know what the real problem is?"


Those are two separate issues that we are debating.

You do realize this just as easily gets turned on its head the other way, right? "Why are you worried about taking down statues when Biden is bombing places in Syria and locking kids in cages and Cuomo and blah blah blah?" Same damn thing.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 11:49:41 am
Yes, but you're the one who created the whole "taking down statues" diversion and decided to pursue it into oblivion.
Pretty sure that was a mutual decision. Also, people are allowed to not share your view and debate and defend and present their views. Why am I the one pursuing it into oblivion, why not they?

Quote
This wasn't some hot topic that everyone jumped on in
If you will look back it was waygoOk who brought up statues. There were a variety of topics discussed, because it was a debate/discussion.

Quote
It's one that you pushed to the forefront, thinking you could create some sly equivalence between the people rampaging through the capitol building to overturn the results of the 2020 election and people who don't think that Confederate monuments belong in a town square.
That wasn't my point at all, nor did I try to make it.

Dude, I think you need to maybe step back and realize that not everything is as planned and nefarious as you think it is.

My point was being angry at statues of long dead people and blaming them for society's ills is borderline mentally ill. It's a sign of unserious people living in unserious times.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 05:14:59 pm
Ah, I misunderstood, then. I'd tried to take your advice and look at the situation with nuance and complexity. Therefore I didn't realize that Mr C, gogators!, waygo0k and Mayor Haggar were literally angry at statues and blamed them for society's ills. I assumed - foolishly, it would appear - that they took issue with what the statues represented, and what implications their continued public display had for regions marked by centuries of cruelty to black people.
But the issue isn't with their representation or their display, I assume it has to be because they have some sort of effect.

If they aren't having an effect, then why get so worked up?

Quote
I assume, then, that your mental illness diagnosis also applies to the removal of Stalin statues in the former Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein statues in Iraq, monuments to segregationists in South Africa and Pinochet statues in Chile.
These were all immediately following the fall of the regime, by people living under the regime, and in the cases of some, while the person was still alive or people that opposed them were still alive. Saddam's statue was toppled while literally remnants of Saddam's forces were still fighting and vying for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and still claiming to be some sort of organized, official regime.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 03, 2021, 05:15:18 pm
AGAIN-

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Modify message


Strange how there are no answers or reply to this. Almost as if people know what the answers are and what that implies...
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 03, 2021, 06:08:49 pm
AGAIN-

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Modify message


Strange how there are no answers or reply to this. Almost as if people know what the answers are and what that implies...

... mainly that he's a nutcase ex-pat who until recently kept a pig farm near Manila named Jim Watkins, who runs 8chan now 8kun with his son Ron.  Or it might be a tech guy named Jason  Gelinas who ran the "drop" website QMap before it was shut down.  Or it may be both or neither.

I'm no expert, but I understand this kind of thing is very difficult to prove in the kind of way that makes bringing charges worthwhile.  How do you know there's no "urgency" on the part of the FBI, BTW?  You've examined the work logs?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 04, 2021, 04:02:32 am
AGAIN-

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?
Modify message


Strange how there are no answers or reply to this. Almost as if people know what the answers are and what that implies...

Not strange at all Marti. Just an indication of the unwillingness of posters to respond to your dumbass questions.

I'd suggest an implication is the understanding that the problem with QAnon doesn't relate to identifying an individual that is responsible for a wackjob theory. Rather part of the problem is the large scale gullibility of the individuals and groups of retards like Waykook and yourself  that buy into the stupidity of the conspiracy theories like a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring that was plotting against their clown prince. The other part is that clown prince in Mar-a-Lago that feeds off them.

The fact the such theories are all so pervasively accepted on the right among people who consider themselves conservatives is more an indication of a mental health crisis.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 04, 2021, 10:01:00 pm
Wrongfooted again. I actually gave Demartino the benefit of the doubt and assumed that someone, at some point, must have made a comment that directly corresponds to these questions he's been shouting [at whom, it's never been clear].

Alas...

I dug back a few pages and found that he first started this in response to an article that gogaors! pasted. So first of all, it wasn't even an original comment from a poster here. Second, it's hard to see how one can extrapolate the ideas that he's demanding that someone [Who? We still don't  know]  defend from the chunk of text that he quoted. I'm gonna hazard a guess that that's why these probing questions remain unanswered.
In other words, they're not worth answering, which is true for most, if not all, of his burning questions.

Condensed version: Why feed the troll?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 05, 2021, 01:18:54 pm
... mainly that he's a nutcase ex-pat who until recently kept a pig farm near Manila named Jim Watkins, who runs 8chan now 8kun with his son Ron.  Or it might be a tech guy named Jason  Gelinas who ran the "drop" website QMap before it was shut down.  Or it may be both or neither.

I'm no expert, but I understand this kind of thing is very difficult to prove in the kind of way that makes bringing charges worthwhile.  How do you know there's no "urgency" on the part of the FBI, BTW?  You've examined the work logs?
The government can find you if they want to. They track down terrorist leaders in frickin Afghanistan with less info than this. If it's true like you say that QAnon was responsible for these conspiracy theories and is encouraging insurrection and treason, then he should be brought to justice and hunted down.

But that isn't happening. There isn't a massive manhunt. People aren't looking for tips. There's no sense of urgency in the media.

I think that tells you all you need to know about how real this "threat" is.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 05, 2021, 01:25:25 pm
No, not really. Debates about what to do with certain statues still continue in S. Africa. Young, contemporary Chileans have been responsible for a lot the momentum for removing Pinochet statues. Do you think that statue of Saddam Hussein that you mentioned was the only one in Iraq? When does the window of opportunity for removing them close, before people who want to do so receive your diagnosis of mental illness?
I'd say that if everyone involved is long since dead, and many of the people that are commemorated are completely unknown, then yeah, you are talking mental illness.

That is a sign of how GOOD things are in America- That one of the key racial issues are statues of people who have been dead for 100 years and most people don't even know who they are.

Like I get this being maybe a side-side issue. Like something you keep in the public eye and mention, not something where you get incredibly worked up over it, start a mass movement, and declare those in opposition to be "the enemy."

However this does make sense if you look at Haidt & Lukianoff's work and understand that at this point leftism/wokeism is a quasi-religion at this point and they are behaving in a manner similar to religious fanatics.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 05, 2021, 01:33:16 pm
I'd suggest an implication is the understanding that the problem with QAnon doesn't relate to identifying an individual that is responsible for a wackjob theory.
This person, by your own claims, motivated people to engage in insurrection and treason. That should make them public enemy #1, yes?

Quote
Rather part of the problem is the large scale gullibility of the individuals and groups of retards like Waykook and yourself  that buy into the stupidity of the conspiracy theories like a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles running a global child sex-trafficking ring that was plotting against their clown prince.
First off, I don't believe in any QAnon crap. I've repeatedly disagree with waygookin74's extreme takes. I do agree that those gullible people are a problem.

I'd also say that a BIG problem is the large number of people, particularly in the center-left who think they are 100% immune from buying into stupid conspiracy theories (Trump-Russia, heard much about that lately? Any progress on this investigation?) and that you in no way are susceptible to bias and manipulation.

The stupidest person isn't the one who got tricked, it's the person who doesn't believe they can be tricked.

If Trump-Russia was real, then why isn't Biden devoting massive energy to ferreting this out and getting to the bottom of things? If the Trump-Russia crowd are to be believed, then this was a massive scandal that should be solved. Instead, nothing. Tells you all you need to know about how real this was.

And gullible saps bought into this dumb conspiracy theory based on flimsy evidence and slick productions and edits.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 05, 2021, 01:44:29 pm
The government can find you if they want to. They track down terrorist leaders in frickin Afghanistan with less info than this. If it's true like you say that QAnon was responsible for these conspiracy theories and is encouraging insurrection and treason, then he should be brought to justice and hunted down.

But that isn't happening. There isn't a massive manhunt. People aren't looking for tips. There's no sense of urgency in the media.

I think that tells you all you need to know about how real this "threat" is.

I answered your question honestly and legitimately.  And it's not about finding, it's about proving, a much more difficult thing to do in the cyberworld.

But you knew that.  You are just intentionally not reading.   And responding in a completely dishonest way.

 Go push your pathetic persona somewhere else.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 05, 2021, 01:58:12 pm
I answered your question honestly and legitimately.  And it's not about finding, it's about proving, a much more difficult thing to do in the cyberworld.

But you knew that.  You are just intentionally not reading.   And responding in a completely dishonest way.

 Go push your pathetic persona somewhere else.
Dude there's like 5 posts to respond to during break time. If I miss something just bring it up and I'll try to get to it.

As far as proof, they're able to track down distributors of child pornography and other heinous crimes. And if Trump "knew what he was doing" then so did QAnon.

Mr. C, you take politics wayyyy too personally.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on March 05, 2021, 02:15:03 pm
you assume they want to track them down, my man. they break bread together, bro. 2 sides of the same coin, my dude. there's no political will to do it, my guy
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 05, 2021, 02:37:20 pm
you assume they want to track them down, my man. they break bread together, bro. 2 sides of the same coin, my dude. there's no political will to do it, my guy
The explanations for them not going after are either

A) They are unwilling
B) They are unable

I highly doubt it's B. If it is A, then we have to ask ourselves why. Either A) They really aren't a threat or B) They are too much of a threat or C) QAnon is a useful idiot.

Out of all the plausible explanations, the least sinister is that QAnon really isn't that much of a threat and people are just making political hay of it. Virtually every other explanation is deeply cynical at best or conspiratorial at worst. 
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on March 05, 2021, 02:41:53 pm
i mean there are elected Qanon congressmembers so there being unelected Qanon intelligency servicemembers doesn't strike me as 2 nutty. and never underestimate the power of having a useful idiot (or a couple thou, i have no idea how many there are)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 05, 2021, 09:22:48 pm
This thread has become a very wearisome collection of dm's many red herrings, strawmen, tangents, flawed analogies and pure WTF arguments in support of something or other.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 05, 2021, 09:44:13 pm
Dude there's like 5 posts to respond to during break time. If I miss something just bring it up and I'll try to get to it.

As far as proof, they're able to track down distributors of child pornography and other heinous crimes. And if Trump "knew what he was doing" then so did QAnon.

Mr. C, you take politics wayyyy too personally.

Oh yeah!?  Well, so's your aunt!
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 06, 2021, 03:44:13 am
This person, by your own claims, motivated people to engage in insurrection and treason. That should make them public enemy #1, yes?

You are such a lying dipsh*t Marti but at least you're acknowledging there was an insurrection, that much, at least, is progress.  Now you need to acknowledge that the motivation for it was the big lie that "the election was stolen" as repeated ad nauseam by the liar in chief.
To quote  Mitch McConnel
Quote
There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"
"The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,"

QAnon is not a person. It's a dumbass conspiracy theory mouthed by dumbasses such as yourself. Unfortunately, there isn't any law against being a dumbass, Marti. If there was Trump would never have been president.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 07, 2021, 03:46:54 am
You are such a lying dipsh*t Marti but at least you're acknowledging there was an insurrection, that much, at least, is progress.

Quote
This person, by your own claims, motivated people to engage in insurrection and treason. That should make them public enemy #1, yes?

Quote
QAnon is not a person. It's a dumbass conspiracy theory mouthed by dumbasses such as yourself.
1) A person made the QAnon posts, hence some person somewhere is responsible for them. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that person should be considered the head of a bunch of insurrectionists and treasonists. So why isn't there a MASSIVE manhunt for this person?

2) I have never espoused anything relating to QAnon. The fact that you think I have is due to your own crappy reading comprehension and inability to process information.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 07, 2021, 03:51:03 am
i mean there are elected Qanon congressmembers so there being unelected Qanon intelligency servicemembers doesn't strike me as 2 nutty. and never underestimate the power of having a useful idiot (or a couple thou, i have no idea how many there are)
If someone is posting QAnon stuff (as in they're the original writer, not just sharing or reposting) within the government, then shouldn't there be some sort of massive rooting out?

This is before we get to the fact that if the Trump-Russia stuff is true, then there should be a follow-up massive government internal investigation over it now that we have a new administration. It's one thing to do a political investigation for political smear purposes. It's another to do an actual real follow-up once you're in charge. People may think they're the same, but they aren't. One is political theater. The other is if you think there really was something going on and you are unsure about the status of your own government.

We have neither of those things happenign. Tyler, you seem like a smart reasonable dude. I think you can see the implications of that lack of action. There's a certain way people and politicians and government agencies behave when they believe something to be true or that there is a real serious threat. This isn't it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 07, 2021, 06:08:47 am
1) A person made the QAnon posts, hence some person somewhere is responsible for them. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that person should be considered the head of a bunch of insurrectionists and treasonists. So why isn't there a MASSIVE manhunt for this person?


Please quote this definition that you claim I have made. 
In the meantime just try to acknowledge what Mitch McConnel and Liz Chaney have said about the identity of the Jan 6th  insurrection leader and stop with your half-arsed revisionism.  The only thing you are convincing anybody of is your worsening mental incapacity! 


Quote
liz Cheney: The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution.
[/quote]

Quote
Mitch McConnel: There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,"
"The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president,"


Quote
2) marti: I have never espoused anything relating to QAnon. The fact that you think I have is due to your own crappy reading comprehension and inability to process information.

How many times have you brought up your deep state conspiracy  theories about the Mueller investigation and how different are they to the bullsh*t QAnon crap?

https://icct.nl/publication/q-pilled-conspiracy-theories-trump-and-election-violence/

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/over-third-americans-believe-in-deep-state-conspiracy-trump-poll-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 08, 2021, 01:52:47 pm
Please quote this definition that you claim I have made. 

And streaming their terrorism live from the Capitol building was also 'making a smart-assed comment about the police being systemically racist'?

So your point is that the fact that people aren't exhibiting enough concern about their investment portfolio is evidence that a group of armed thugs storming the Capital building, killing a police officer, injuring countless others,  chanting "hang Pence", going after the speaker of house and attempted to prevent the certification of election is not an attempted act of insurrection?

Did you see the cop at the end of the clip posing for a selfie with a Trump seditionist?

You claim that what took place was an insurrection, sedition, and terror. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that makes the QAnon original poster someone inciting all of those crimes and they should be hunted down and prosecuted, just like say, Anwar Al-Alwaki. We have the capability to do so. Why isn't it being done? Why isn't there a massive manhunt for Q?

Quote
n the meantime just try to acknowledge what Mitch McConnel and Liz Chaney have said about the identity of the Jan 6th  insurrection leader and stop with your half-arsed revisionism.
Cheney and McConnell have their own opinions. By that logic, any person who has ever organized a protest that spun out of control is responsible. It is the decision of the individuals involved to engage in violence. At no point did Trump call for that.

Quote
How many times have you brought up your deep state conspiracy  theories about the Mueller investigation and how different are they to the bullsh*t QAnon crap?
Pointing out that the Mueller investigation revealed no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion and that the entire Trump-Russia thing is a batshit conspiracy theory is not "bullsh*t QAnon crap"

YOU are the one believing in a crazy conspiracy theory if you believe the Trump-Russia stuff.

When I post links from CNN or the Washington Post calling into question the FISA court procedures used to go after Trump staffers, that isn't a conspiracy theory. That's what actually happened. Just because those facts interfere with your narrative doesn't make them a conspiracy theory.

This is real easy to do: "The Trump-Russia stuff was a load of bullshit. Donald Trump was still a terrible President." But you can't. ANYTHING anti-Trump you bought into and for some reason you can't acknowledge that some of it was garbage. Why? Why can't you admit that some of the criticisms or accusations about Trump are full of nonsense? That doesn't invalidate other criticisms or accusations.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 08, 2021, 02:14:55 pm
1) A person made the QAnon posts, hence some person somewhere is responsible for them. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that person should be considered the head of a bunch of insurrectionists and treasonists. So why isn't there a MASSIVE manhunt for this person?

2) I have never espoused anything relating to QAnon. The fact that you think I have is due to your own crappy reading comprehension and inability to process information.
You claim that what took place was an insurrection, sedition, and terror. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION that makes the QAnon original poster someone inciting all of those crimes and they should be hunted down and prosecuted,

Perhaps in your state of mental retardation where 2 + 2 = 15 this could be true. However, it's a little more than a claim though Marti. It actually happened. Nonetheless, the fact that an insurrection took place does not prove that is was incited by a conspiracy theory, sorry Marti and this is in no way a definition to any sane person. In the sober world of reality where the world isn't flat and where Donald Trump planned, organized, motivated and incited the insurrection as a number of prominent conservatives have acknowledged  one could only conclude that you're in need of more therapy.

In the future I shall refrain from attempting to argue with someone that has clearly lost his mind!



Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on March 08, 2021, 02:30:44 pm
If someone is posting QAnon stuff (as in they're the original writer, not just sharing or reposting) within the government, then shouldn't there be some sort of massive rooting out?
why would there be a massive rooting out?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 08, 2021, 02:46:05 pm
Perhaps in your state of mental retardation where 2 + 2 = 15 this could be true. However, it's a little more than a claim though Marti.
It's a claim that what took place constituted a real actual insurrection and coup attempt. I for one, am skeptical about the strength of such a claim considering the primary weapons were blunt objects and bear mace, and that there was little attempt to actually seize the reigns of government. And that's before we get to the guy with horns and a spear running around. If this lot genuinely believed they were staging an insurrection and actual coup, then they're not mentally fit to stand trial. And if Donald Trump actually thought this was a real serious coup attempt and actually did plan this to be a coup attempt, then he isn't fit to stand trial either.

Quote
Nonetheless, the fact that an insurrection took place does not prove that is was incited by a conspiracy theory, sorry Marti and this is in no way a definition to any sane person.
Then it is your claim that QAnon had nothing to do with, in your words, the insurrection that took place? That QAnon did not incite or encourage these people? That it was solely Donald Trump?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 08, 2021, 02:50:05 pm
Toady: "Okay Mr. President, you want to stay in power and stage a coup. How do you want to do it?"
Trump: "I'm going to summon a bunch of people and have them wave flags. Then at some point a few hundred of them will manage to break the police cordon armed. Why? How? Yes, I know I don't control the Capitol Police, but it will still happen because I have mind control powers and the D.C. Police are 100% in the pocket of me. I can predict that they'll stand aside and let them in and not just beat them up or start shooting."
Toady: "Sir, many of these people own tons of guns and many of them are former military or current law enforcement. Should they bring their guns? Maybe organize into tactical fire teams and spread out across the city? Assault the Capitol from various points? Should you provide them layouts of the place?"
Trump: "Nah, send in the guy with the horn hat and the spear. And arm them with bear mace. That will get the job done."

You can't have it both ways- You can't claim that this was a legit, dangerous, serious coup attempt and then dismiss the utterly haphazard, inept, chaotic, uncoordinated, extremely non-lethal and under-powered nature of it.

It's awfully hard to claim that the same crowd that have more AR-15s than limbs were seriously attempting to take over the government armed with...bear mace.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 08, 2021, 02:57:53 pm
why would there be a massive rooting out?
Well if indeed there are serious numbers of QAnon supporting or participating members of our Armed Forces/Federal Law Enforcement/Intel community, then certainly they should be identified and something done with them. Assuming of course, that one does agree that QAnon is a dangerous conspiracy theory.

If we accept the claim that these really were organized insurrectionists and seditionists, then we should treat them as such and act on it.

Which is why it perplexes me that the side that was most victimized by QAnon and has the most incentive to root them out and to seek justice, isn't doing so. Why is this supposed dangerous conspiracy theory now being largely ignored, except as a way to portray political opponents as nuts? Why not a massive manhunt and review?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: tylerthegloob on March 08, 2021, 03:18:45 pm
what're you gonna charge them with? it would create more problems than it'd solve and, as you've said, they aren't very effective (or dangerous) anyway (yet?). but i wouldn't count out the "useful idiot" explanation either ("whose useful idiot?" logically follows and is interesting but perhaps not immediately relevant). marjorie taylor greene already got removed from her committees, that's good enough for me (for now)
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 08, 2021, 10:23:33 pm
Prosecutors charge people with crimes that they can readily prove in a court of law and make cases that they are fairly sure they can win.

QAnon is not being "largely ignored." The right continues to pander to its followers,  under the new administration the FBI is much more focused on domestic terrorists of this sort, Congress is holding hearings about the attempted coup and the media reports on it with regularity.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: DocH on March 09, 2021, 08:27:47 am
Prosecutors charge people with crimes that they can readily prove in a court of law and make cases that they are fairly sure they can win.

QAnon is not being "largely ignored." The right continues to pander to its followers,  under the new administration the FBI is much more focused on domestic terrorists of this sort, Congress is holding hearings about the attempted coup and the media reports on it with regularity.

What coup are you referring to?
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 09, 2021, 11:04:14 am
what're you gonna charge them with? it would create more problems than it'd solve and, as you've said, they aren't very effective (or dangerous) anyway (yet?).
Well I agree with all of that.

Basically my point was to show that the lack of urgency in going after QAnon shows the true nature of what happened- Making the case for coup or insurrection is really flimsy and that the actual danger they posed wasn't that severe, nor were they really organized.

We can't claim these coup attempters were QAnon-driven terrorists and then not hunt down terrorist influencer and coup inciter QAnon.

You'd think inconsistencies like this would cause people to reevaluate their interpretation of events, but nope.

Quote
but i wouldn't count out the "useful idiot" explanation either ("whose useful idiot?" logically follows and is interesting but perhaps not immediately relevant)
I don't know, but the lack of serious investigation into this makes one consider some disturbing possibilities.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 09, 2021, 11:08:44 am
Prosecutors charge people with crimes that they can readily prove in a court of law and make cases that they are fairly sure they can win.

QAnon is not being "largely ignored." The right continues to pander to its followers,  under the new administration the FBI is much more focused on domestic terrorists of this sort, Congress is holding hearings about the attempted coup and the media reports on it with regularity.
Well if you can't even get an indictment for it, you probably shouldn't declare it to be that.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 09, 2021, 07:31:52 pm
Well if you can't even get an indictment for it, you probably shouldn't declare it to be that.
Getting an indictment and a conviction are two different things.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: DocH on March 11, 2021, 10:25:46 am
Getting an indictment and a conviction are two different things.

I"m genuinely curious as to what coup you were referring to....
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: gogators! on March 11, 2021, 07:55:26 pm
I"m genuinely curious as to what coup you were referring to....
Now, an academic center that was the major resource for our analysis — the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research— has made a determination that had not been made at the time we wrote our initial article.

Specifically, the group has decided that the events of Jan. 6 do fit the definition of an “attempted dissident coup.” under the group’s taxonomy.

The storming of the Capitol “was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election,” the center announced on Jan. 27.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 11, 2021, 08:35:40 pm
Now, an academic center that was the major resource for our analysis — the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research— has made a determination that had not been made at the time we wrote our initial article.

Specifically, the group has decided that the events of Jan. 6 do fit the definition of an “attempted dissident coup.” under the group’s taxonomy.

The storming of the Capitol “was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election,” the center announced on Jan. 27.

What an American conservative read:
"Now an academic blah blah blah Jan. 6 lies lies blah blah blah  blah blah blah  Jan. 27."
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: waygo0k on March 12, 2021, 09:06:00 am
What a waygook.org conservative just read:

"Socialist communist academic trying to push wokeness on us through fake news. We just want the good old days of freeze peach back"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 10:57:41 am
Now, an academic center that was the major resource for our analysis — the Coup D’etat Project at the University of Illinois’ Cline Center for Advanced Social Research— has made a determination that had not been made at the time we wrote our initial article.

Specifically, the group has decided that the events of Jan. 6 do fit the definition of an “attempted dissident coup.” under the group’s taxonomy.

The storming of the Capitol “was an attempted coup d’état: an organized, illegal attempt to intervene in the presidential transition by displacing the power of the Congress to certify the election,” the center announced on Jan. 27.
There was no serious attempt to displace the power of Congress.

Also, Coup D'etat Project declaring something to be a coup is rather predictable. I do think they should be transparent about where their research grant money comes from, as well as partisan affiliation of its members. I mean, if it's University of Illinois, the strong arm of the Chicago Machine is not far off...

Only an idiot would accept such a group's proclamation without any scrutiny of their claims.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 11:46:32 am
There was no serious attempt to displace the power of Congress.

Also, Coup D'etat Project declaring something to be a coup is rather predictable. I do think they should be transparent about where their research grant money comes from, as well as partisan affiliation of its members. I mean, if it's University of Illinois, the strong arm of the Chicago Machine is not far off...

Only an idiot would accept such a group's proclamation without any scrutiny of their claims.

So you just decided that they are not transparent about where they get their funding from?  It's actually all right there on their website--which only an IDIOT would fail to consult it before making that statement.  You think their staff are not transparent about their affiliations?  Of course, it's very poor form for professors to put up on their webpage stuff like "I'm a Nazi sympathizer"--even that Butz guy doesn't do that.  So you're expecting something that is unethical--only an IDIOT would expect professors to proselytize within the bounds of their faculty space.  However, most of the people at the Cline Center have a bio or webpage that people who are NOT AN IDIOT probably would have checked before questioning them.

Their declaring something to be a coup is strictly and entirely dependent upon the event's meeting the five criteria they set forth.  Only an IDIOT would claim it is "predictable" without looking into the criteria and whether or not  the event met those criteria.   The only way a person making a claim of this predictability would NOT BE AN IDIOT would be if he read the five criteria and agreed the event matched them, thus making their declaration predictable--because it was correct*.

*according to those criteria
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 01:21:58 pm
So you just decided that they are not transparent about where they get their funding from?  It's actually all right there on their website--which only an IDIOT would fail to consult it before making that statement.  You think their staff are not transparent about their affiliations?  Of course, it's very poor form for professors to put up on their webpage stuff like "I'm a Nazi sympathizer"--even that Butz guy doesn't do that.
If it involves a partisan issue, they should make clear their partisan affiliation. And if you don't think that has an effect, you're naive.

Quote
So you're expecting something that is unethical--only an IDIOT would expect professors to proselytize within the bounds of their faculty space. 
You seriously think professors don't do that in this woke day and age?

And nothing says ethical like an entire system that is driven by research grants, speaking fees, and getting published in journals to boost your career. Academia is a joke and even academia quietly acknowledges it. Well, those that are ethical do.

Quote
However, most of the people at the Cline Center have a bio or webpage that people who are NOT AN IDIOT probably would have checked before questioning them.
I think they should disclose their campaign donations and political affiliation so we can determine if there's a high probability of bias.

Quote
e only way a person making a claim of this predictability would NOT BE AN IDIOT would be if he read the five criteria and agreed the event matched them, thus making their declaration predictable--because it was correct*.

The good thing is we can do that and see that they're full of shit-

https://clinecenter.illinois.edu/coup-detat-project-cdp/statement_jan.27.2021
Quote
3. There must be a credible threat to the leaders' hold on power.
Only an idiot would think people armed with spears and bear mace, with half of them running around taking selfies constituted a "credible threat" TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Like they couldn't even defeat the D.C. Police if they got serious. That's before we get to the FBI and the military.

You think horned guy was a "credible threat"? Give me a break. STOP TRYING TO OVERSELL THIS.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 01:29:17 pm
If it involves a partisan issue, they should make clear their partisan affiliation.

I was unaware that attacking the US Capitol building in an attempt (no matter how flaccid or inane) to change the outcome of an election is a partisan issue. 

The fact that you do, and sadly, so many nutcases agree with you, doesn't make it partisan.

Just like, no matter how many people use apostrophe-s as a plural, they will never make it correct grammar.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 01:29:51 pm
STOP TRYING TO OVERSELL THIS.

Stop trying to excuse it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 01:54:18 pm
I was unaware that attacking the US Capitol building in an attempt (no matter how flaccid or inane) to change the outcome of an election is a partisan issue. 
It is when you gin it up into something it isn't in order to go after your political rivals.

The fact that you pretend it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't a partisan issue in the real world. Only the cluelessly naive would believe there isn't politics involved in this.

Stop trying to excuse it.
No one's excusing it. The fact that I think these people are guilty of a bunch of crimes and deserve to be punished but that it was not an organized coup or insurrection or whatever IS NOT excusing it.

That mentality is no different than that of some scumbag DA who overcharges people with crimes that they could tenuously say they did, simply in order to hammer them into plea bargains so they can boost their profile. Or some cop who flips out at some person over a random comment and is like "HE THREATENED TO KILL ME!!!!! I WAS JUSTIFIED!!!!!"

STOP OVERCHARGING. If you believe in criminal justice reform, then you have to practice it and that means you have to be consistent.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 02:06:47 pm
It is when you gin it up into something it isn't in order to go after your political rivals.

The fact that you pretend it isn't, doesn't mean it isn't a partisan issue in the real world. Only the cluelessly naive would believe there isn't politics involved in this.


Well, I'll concede it is partisan if you'll concede that it's only partisan because the Republican Party stands firmly against democratic elections in America.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on March 12, 2021, 02:08:48 pm
If you believe in criminal justice reform, then you have to practice it and that means you have to be consistent.

"The police disproportionately target people of color and hit them with longer sentences" does tend to turn to "that (white) dude is guilty, lock him up for life" pretty quick

which isnt to say either of those statements are untrue (and especially with some crimes i can 100% understand wanting the harshest possible sentence) but the goal should be people of color being treated fairly and receiving shorter (or at the very least fair) sentences rather than people of color being treated fairly and white people receiving equally unjust sentences.

this is definitely a difficult conversation when were talking about extreme stuff like murder, but scale it back a bit and think in terms of drugs and stuff like that - the goal should be decriminalization and nobody gets arrested, not everybody gets arrested equally
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 12, 2021, 02:12:32 pm
In fairness to Marti, his latest ploy is more about deflecting the blame for the events of Jan 6th towards a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory to protect his cult leader hero!  :laugh:
In the end he's convinced no-one and only really encouraged people to ignore his pish posh style of argument.
Nonetheless, the insurrection leader has created deep division inside the GOP. I'm not sure how Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnel's responses to the events fit within this supposed partisan framework that Marti speaks of.   
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: 745sticky on March 12, 2021, 02:40:45 pm
In fairness to Marti, his latest ploy is more about deflecting the blame for the events of Jan 6th towards a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory to protect his cult leader hero!  :laugh:
In the end he's convinced no-one and only really encouraged people to ignore his pish posh style of argument.
Nonetheless, the insurrection leader has created deep division inside the GOP. I'm not sure how Liz Cheney and Mitch McConnel's responses to the events fit within this supposed partisan framework that Marti speaks of.

apparently the proud boys leader was a "prolific" FBI informant, although that still doesnt account for the rest of them

plus theres idiots like baked alaska/fuentes/etc who were there for clout and youtube content, as dumb as that sounds. and im sure a sizeable amount were also maga chuds who heard about the "plan" somewhere or the other and decided to tag along
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 04:59:24 pm
Well, I'll concede it is partisan if you'll concede that it's only partisan because the Republican Party stands firmly against democratic elections in America.
How do the Republicans stand firmly against democratic elections? The reason they thought the election was stolen, which by the way, in their view, is about protecting democratic elections, is because they felt that there were shenanigans and that there was a lack of transparency and that some of the challenges were being shut down using circular reasoning. Now those claims might well have been been made using shoddy reasoning and delusional thinking, but that was still their motive. And even a moderate like Kyndo agreed that the process did lack something in transparency. The tone of the response was much more "How dare you question this? Sit down, shut up" rather than "We invite you in to be a part of this process and do as thorough an examination as possible." Furthermore, it's not like the left hasn't protested elections and declared people illegitimate- Bush 2000, Bush 2004, Georgia Governor, claims of voter suppression. And there have been actual cases of small-scale election fraud.

Now the evidence to support large-scale ballot fraud at the moment is scant. And leaping to "It was stolen" vs. "Lets audit" is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Anyways, it wasn't the Republican Party that rigged a primary election in 2016 and 2020. It was the Democrats openly putting their thumbs on the scales both times. Say what you will about the GOP, but they said "Let the vote by the vote and let the people choose. It is not our place to put our thumbs on the scale" in 2016. The Democrats did not.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 05:06:41 pm
"The police disproportionately target people of color and hit them with longer sentences" does tend to turn to "that (white) dude is guilty, lock him up for life" pretty quick
Exactly. The same people howling about cops lighting up people under the slightest pretext and courts overcharging people simply to get money out of them are the people now trying to claim this was a full on coup and insurrection. Calling this an insurrection and a coup is the same as dropping a guy for waving around a butter knife "Well theoretically he could get lucky and hit someone's jugular at just the right angle and with enough force so as to kill them, therefore we're justified in firing 50 shots into him." Theoretically these people were trying to take over, so lets declare them insurrectionists.

For some reason posters like Adel, MayorHaggar, and Mr. C feel like they "lose" something by it merely being a violent civil disturbance and not a full on coup. Lose what and why? I have no idea.

But I suspect its that same impulse that leads to shoddy justification shootings- deep seeded personal animus towards what those people represent in their minds. These guys are going to pay and it will feel good to hurt them. In the words of Philip Brailsford: "You're f*cked"
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr.DeMartino on March 12, 2021, 05:18:25 pm
apparently the proud boys leader was a "prolific" FBI informant, although that still doesnt account for the rest of them
Yeah, if the main group that everyone blames is being headed by an informant, that just adds even more skepticism to the official version of events. We already have that. Then we have questions about the police and their orders. And finally we have a decided lack of interest in finding QAnon. Not saying I smell a rat, but there is definitely an odor.

That being said, like, all of that can be true and it can still be the case that 90% of those thugs and idiots who stormed the place had nothing to do with any of that and it still happened and those things just are all separate.

Still the longer we see people in the news claim this was a violent coup, driven by QAnon crap, and the government does nothing to go after alleged violent coup inciter QAnon, the safer we can be in determining who really is behind QAnon.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 06:24:48 pm
Exactly. The same people howling about cops lighting up people under the slightest pretext and courts overcharging people simply to get money out of them are the people now trying to claim this was a full on coup and insurrection. Calling this an insurrection and a coup is the same as dropping a guy for waving around a butter knife "Well theoretically he could get lucky and hit someone's jugular at just the right angle and with enough force so as to kill them, therefore we're justified in firing 50 shots into him." Theoretically these people were trying to take over, so lets declare them insurrectionists.

For some reason posters like Adel, MayorHaggar, and Mr. C feel like they "lose" something by it merely being a violent civil disturbance and not a full on coup. Lose what and why? I have no idea.

Here's an analogy:  your desire to arrest the actual rioters compares to cops arresting the guys on street corners selling dime bags while the volume traffickers go free.  We want to get the guys at the top, responsible.  See?  That means Donald Trump.

According to whom, you ask?  How about:

“Would anybody have marched on the Capitol, and overrun the Capitol, without the president’s speech? I think it’s pretty much definitive that wouldn’t have happened,” said Christopher Miller, a hawkish Special Forces veteran chosen by Trump to replace former Defense Secretary Mark Esper days after the 2020 presidential election.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Mr C on March 12, 2021, 06:26:43 pm
How do the Republicans stand firmly against democratic elections? The reason they thought the election was stolen, which by the way, in their view, is about protecting democratic elections, is because they felt that there were shenanigans and that there was a lack of transparency and that some of the challenges were being shut down using circular reasoning. Now those claims might well have been been made using shoddy reasoning and delusional thinking, but that was still their motive. And even a moderate like Kyndo agreed that the process did lack something in transparency. The tone of the response was much more "How dare you question this? Sit down, shut up" rather than "We invite you in to be a part of this process and do as thorough an examination as possible." Furthermore, it's not like the left hasn't protested elections and declared people illegitimate- Bush 2000, Bush 2004, Georgia Governor, claims of voter suppression. And there have been actual cases of small-scale election fraud.

Now the evidence to support large-scale ballot fraud at the moment is scant. And leaping to "It was stolen" vs. "Lets audit" is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Anyways, it wasn't the Republican Party that rigged a primary election in 2016 and 2020. It was the Democrats openly putting their thumbs on the scales both times. Say what you will about the GOP, but they said "Let the vote by the vote and let the people choose. It is not our place to put our thumbs on the scale" in 2016. The Democrats did not.

Heaven sake, the GOP of Arizona (rev) is trying to pass a law giving their legislature the capacity to literally overturn the vote of the people of their state without needing to even give cause.

And by the way, the Democratic Party's method of choosing their candidates is entirely up to them, what does the GOP have to do with it?  (Oh, maybe they thought the other guy would be easier to defeat?)  In any case, if you don't like it, join the party and try to change it.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: Adel on March 12, 2021, 11:38:39 pm
Wow...this is all unhealthy and ignorant. 
Ignorant of what exactly?  Your reference to 'this' is vague at best.
Title: Re: Potential for Violence
Post by: VanIslander on March 13, 2021, 05:24:50 am
Stop the insults.
Don't attack the character of posters.

Be hard on the problem, not the people.
Criticize the message, don't shoot the messenger.

Be civil. Debate. Get along.

Follow the Terms of Service.