Potential for Violence

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Getting an indictment and a conviction are two different things.

I"m genuinely curious as to what coup you were referring to....

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.

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."

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"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.