Media Event!! Jan 6th Propaganda!! Tonight!! Official Thread!!

[Fnord 2,280]

2 minutes ago, Reality said:

He's your rebuttal, in case you missed it earlier:

 

You got focking played, do you ever grow tired of it?

This is a rebuttal? Brit Hume waxing poetic about something everyone already knows? Yup, it was made for tv. Yup, it was one-sided. See my post above. We know why it was one-sided, we know why it was made for tv. That's supposed to somehow show how I'm getting played? Try again.

And WTF does it matter that the subpoena was withdrawn? It was issued months ago, was never going to be honored, and the committee is done. It means nothing, it's just procedural. You linked Breitbart and the article doesn't even editorialize the news, just reports it. Think about that. Even super-slanted Breitbart doesn't GAF. 

[Fnord 2,280]

6 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m MAGA. I don’t want any of that. Fascists don’t get impeached twice and lose elections and let the media rake them over the coals. You idiot. 

Then you're dumber even than most of those here think you are. You claim you don't want it but continue to support the people working to make it happen. Keep watching Tucker!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,460]

10 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Then you're dumber even than most of those here think you are. You claim you don't want it but continue to support the people working to make it happen. Keep watching Tucker!

To make an autocracy happen? Who’s doing that? Wow. You are off the deep end. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

I’m MAGA. I don’t want any of that. Fascists don’t get impeached twice and lose elections and let the media rake them over the coals. You idiot. 

Clownzo and his MAGAtard cultists have a playbook that's eerily similar to the rise of fascism in this country in the late 1930s as well as what led up to the Nazis and Hitler coming into power. The media have always been critical of presidents, but we've never had a president work so hard to demonize the media, to the point at which MAGAtards change the very definition of main-stream media to be media with which they disagree. They can't lump Fox, the most popular TV news network, and that idiot Cucker Carlson, the nation's No. 1 infotainer, in with MSM, which is moronic.

Clownzo and his ilk did just about all of the following things:

Quote

 

Log InJoin HuffPost

10 Small Steps: Executing the Fascist Playbook

×

 

 

10 Small Steps: Executing the Fascist Playbook

10 Small Steps: Executing the Fascist Playbook

Fascism is not a spontaneously created form of government; it comes from democracy.

It’s a form of government springs from democracy, a reaction by a sector of the population turned off by societal evolution and turned on by promises of a return to a perceived superior and more certain past, then augmented by the leaders’ gradual amalgamation of power over time, until they cannot be ejected from it.

Fascism is slower and more insidious than people realize, yet it is also predictable. History repeats itself, and, if Fascism comes to America now, this is the playbook its agents will follow, in its relative order.

1) Play to people’s strongest fears, insecurities, and points of anger to win the election. Historically, fascists triumph in nation-states where the voters feel that their pride is being stolen, and the fascist can restore it.

ADVERTISEMENT

2) Normalize yourself through your press and public statements. Fascism is inherently divisive. No fascist leader has ever been elected with a pure majority of the vote. Most came to power through a coalition of the disaffected, which left a majority, yet divided opposition. Fascists use a compliant and ingratiating press, and a skilled media-campaign manager and chief of staff type, to create a softer narrative around them when they enter office.

 

3) Appoint a trusted associate who is close to the vortex of power, but also outside of the traditional power structure. This individual is the fascist leader’s (unofficial) conduit to their base of extreme supporters. Eventually, as their power is consolidated, this person is brought more officially into the power structure, such as when Hitler made Joseph Steven Bannon Goebbels his official Head of Communication.

4) Fascists typically re-make the party that brought them into power in their own image, re-fashioning it to fit in their own deeply unconventional and personal coalition of support. Hitler famously did this by using the 1934 Night of the Long Knives to purge first the conservatives who allowed him into power after the death of President Hindenberg, particularly former chancellor Kurt Von Schleicher, and also his first great supporter and top rival, the Head of the SA Brownshirts, Ernst Chris Christie Rohm.

5) Fascists almost always begin their tenure in office focused on infrastructure projects, in order to stimulate the economy and solidify their semi-god-like status in the eyes of their strongest supporters while earning the conditional support of independents. In fact, nearly all successful fascists leaders, from Hitler, to Mussolini, to Peron, successfully jumpstarted the economy in their early years. Unfortunately, these gains are ephemeral, achieved through unsustainable state spending to create employment through construction and infrastructure jobs, but they achieve the purpose of making the fascist look good in the short-medium term.

 

6) Fascists begin to develop and refine their cult of identity in anticipation of re-election if the aforementioned economic spending is progressing well. They pursue activities such as the 1936 Berlin Olympics to increase their prestige and citizens’ feelings of glory.

7) The big test for a fascist’s staying power is their first re-election. Historically, most successful fascist leaders are patient, waiting to consolidate real power until after they have been re-elected by a majority of voters. People, ignoring the lessons of history, regularly “give him a chance” and fall for this gambit. The fascist will quietly martial their base of extreme support to intimidate voters in order to increase their chances of re-election. In recent years, we saw this pattern with the current Presidents of Turkey and Russia when they were first re-elected a decade ago.

Once re-elected, fascist leaders then begin more rapidly tightening their grip on the institutions of power and removing said institutions’ ability to check the leader. The most important piece of this puzzle is the judiciary. In Germany, by 1938, Hitler had essentially removed the independent German judiciary. In Russia, Putin, who was first elected in 1999, had a rubber stamp justice system by the mid-2000s. The President of Turkey’s progress was slower, primarily because of Turkey’s interventionist military, but in staving off a coup this summer, appears to have now fully achieved this goal. In the US, stacking the Supreme Court with 2-3 loyalists to tip its balance and pairing them with 100+ loyal federal judges would likely be enough, numbers that are typically achieved in the second term of a presidency.

9) Marginalize the voting power of groups aligned against you with rapid force: after re-election, and once the judiciary has been effectively neutralized, the fascist leader pinpoints the groups that are most implacably opposed to his power and acts quickly to marginalize them. Trumped up charges are used to neuter opposition political leaders, who – in the wake of losing the re-election battle – often self-deport into exile to avoid show trials. More implacable ones who remain, such as Boris Nemetsov in Russia, are simply assassinated. Groups that are not well-liked by the fascist’s core supporters and who represent votes – religious and ethnic minorities especially – face rapid discrimination and often lose their right to vote. This further tightens the leaders’ grip on electoral support.

 

10) Declare yourself father of the people. Once there are no more high profile political opposition leaders, and the voting power of marginalized groups have been gutted, there is no one left to stand against you.

The playbook for fascism has been used before and it’s easy to spot if you are paying attention. Institutions, constitutions, and judicial statutes are just the paper they are written on: they require real people to see the threat and act on it, before it is too late.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/10-small-steps-executing-the-fascist-playbook_b_585dfec2e4b04d7df167cfab

[Reality 3,121]

20 minutes ago, Fnord said:

This is a rebuttal? Brit Hume waxing poetic about something everyone already knows? Yup, it was made for tv. Yup, it was one-sided. See my post above. We know why it was one-sided, we know why it was made for tv. That's supposed to somehow show how I'm getting played? Try again.

And WTF does it matter that the subpoena was withdrawn? It was issued months ago, was never going to be honored, and the committee is done. It means nothing, it's just procedural. You linked Breitbart and the article doesn't even editorialize the news, just reports it. Think about that. Even super-slanted Breitbart doesn't GAF. 

Well, at least you admit you don't mind getting played. In fact, you seem to enjoy it. Good for you.

[Raven Fan 362]

18 minutes ago, Reality said:

Well, at least you admit you don't mind getting played. In fact, you seem to enjoy it. Good for you.

Just so we're clear.  Almost everyone who testified was a republican who worked for Trump.  They all testified he was actively looking for ways to overthrow the election.  That he did nothing for 3 hours while his mindless, deplorable cult ransacked our capital.  

And having the worthless subpoena pulled must have gone out in the cultist playbook today because I've seen cultist claim some kind of victory for it on another cultist infested site.  LOL

[Fnord 2,280]

19 minutes ago, Reality said:

Well, at least you admit you don't mind getting played. In fact, you seem to enjoy it. Good for you.

Just like most MAGA types, you refuse to engage in good faith discussion of your position, and are incapable of defending it when presented with true refutation. You are a perfect dupe.

[Reality 3,121]

16 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Just like most MAGA types, you refuse to engage in good faith discussion of your position, and are incapable of defending it when presented with true refutation. You are a perfect dupe.

Once again, I'm sorry you got taken for a ride. Maybe next time will definitely be the one?

[Fnord 2,280]

26 minutes ago, Reality said:

Once again, I'm sorry you got taken for a ride. Maybe next time will definitely be the one?

Just like most MAGA types, you refuse to engage in good faith discussion of your position, and are incapable of defending it when presented with true refutation. You are a perfect dupe.

[Reality 3,121]

11 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Just like most MAGA types, you refuse to engage in good faith discussion of your position, and are incapable of defending it when presented with true refutation. You are a perfect dupe.

You just described the entire January 6th committee. I'm sorry this happened to you.

[Fnord 2,280]

2 hours ago, Reality said:

You just described the entire January 6th committee. I'm sorry this happened to you.

I know you've heard this a million times, but your handle is just a scrumptious slice of irony. You don't disappoint. Keep on showing all of us that you don't have a grasp of it, it just builds a stronger case for those of us that pay attention.

[RLLD 4,237]

7 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

So you're ok with a horde of deplorables attacking our capital?

Interesting strategy their cotton. 

I think we all agree that those morons should be held to account for their actions, and unlike those in Portland and other places who did even worse stuff….they are being held accountable.

I might suggest that the incessant effort to go after Trump is sorta played out and Democrats need to move on or get some therapy at this stage.

It would be like Republicans still going after Obama….it’s just a little weird now….JMHO

Plus the real threat to their power looks to be Desantis

[Raven Fan 362]

12 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think we all agree that those morons should be held to account for their actions, and unlike those in Portland and other places who did even worse stuff….they are being held accountable.

I might suggest that the incessant effort to go after Trump is sorta played out and Democrats need to move on or get some therapy at this stage.

It would be like Republicans still going after Obama….it’s just a little weird now….JMHO

Plus the real threat to their power looks to be Desantis

Can you aware me when Obama sycophants attacked our capital to try to prevent the peaceful transition of power?

And you think what happened in Portland was worse?  How often have we had riots?  How often has the peaceful transition of power been attacked?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,460]

Did you know there was a threat made to fly a plane into the Capitol the day before? They didn’t bother to tell anyone. 

[jerryskids 6,811]

@Fnord, thanks for posting.  I'll see if I can find a less biased summary of events, because the USA Today is heavily Left, and they didn't disappoint here.  One would be led to believe from this "summary" that the entirety of the 1/6 was about Trump, even things not directly related (like the Georgia vote topic, which is worthy of discussion but a different one).  Another example was the pathetic lack of security, which oddly discusses no culpability or plans for improvement, but Trump$#@!:

Quote

Risk to Capitol was ‘foreseeable’

Although the House committee heaped primary blame on former President Donald Trump for the deadly Capitol assault, the report also offered a damning account of law enforcement’s response to troubling intelligence gathered in the weeks before the attack.

“Federal and local law enforcement authorities were in possession of multiple streams of intelligence predicting violence directed at the Capitol prior to January 6th,” the committee concluded. “Although some of that intelligence was fragmentary, it should have been sufficient to warrant far more vigorous preparations for the security of the joint session.”

The panel said the failure to share and act on the warnings “jeopardized the lives of the police officers defending the Capitol and everyone in it.”

“While the danger to the Capitol posed by an armed and angry crowd was foreseeable, the fact that the President of the United States would be the catalyst of their fury and facilitate the attack was unprecedented in American history.”

– Kevin Johnson

I saw no new conclusions, no evidence that Trump directly orchestrated events.  Instead I see more of the same argument:  Trump questioned the election and riled people up about it, and he waited too long to talk.  I see no real concern about the lack of security, the infiltration of the FBI and their impact on the events (a search for "FBI" comes up blank in your article), no discussion about Capitol Police who pulled aside little barriers, turned their backs on the vicious murderous crowd, and ambled among them toward the building.  

[RLLD 4,237]

2 hours ago, Raven Fan said:

Can you aware me when Obama sycophants attacked our capital to try to prevent the peaceful transition of power?

And you think what happened in Portland was worse?  How often have we had riots?  How often has the peaceful transition of power been attacked?

Again, so what? Ok, some morons stormed the capital.....and were held accountable....move on....  we all moved on from the left wing brown shirts attacking cities....I think you can do the same...

[shadrap 228]

8 hours ago, Fnord said:

 

Dude, you're better than this. 

The R's had their opportunity to have a say in it, but true to form, decided to grandstand and bullsh!t when it came down to actually accomplishing something. If you truly want to get the "full story" you should support an indictment, so the R's that literally attempted to subvert the constitution have an opportunity to tell "their side." So far, they've all just refused to testify or plead the fifth. The committee did it's work without them because it was forced to. That was by design, so the R's could be ignorant of the process and use it as a cudgel to beat the public over the head with the same message you're repeating here.

nope.  you are better than this also.  how many people did the repubs want on the committee?  2 people.    Nope.    was a damn lynching right from the start.

oops--they are involved-can't be on committee.  opps, they are not on final report..not involved.

A simple one side lynching with no rebuttal.  none.

one side & one side only.

 

 

 

[Djgb13 2,339]

Pretty sure they’re dropping the investigation cause Nancy is heavily involved in the Capitol riot and they don’t want her getting thrown in jail. Astounds me she claims “sovereign immunity” so she doesn’t have to give her phone, texts, calls, videos, etc to the court. And now they’re dropping it. 
 

Smell that? Smells like Hack: dirty and Sh1tty

[Djgb13 2,339]

The more I see about this the more obvious it is the Dems, specifically Nancy Pelosi, are the ACTUAL ones who encouraged this and made sure it was gonna happen 

 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRbFPxJR/

[Fnord 2,280]

14 hours ago, jerryskids said:

@Fnord, thanks for posting.  I'll see if I can find a less biased summary of events, because the USA Today is heavily Left, and they didn't disappoint here.  One would be led to believe from this "summary" that the entirety of the 1/6 was about Trump, even things not directly related (like the Georgia vote topic, which is worthy of discussion but a different one).  Another example was the pathetic lack of security, which oddly discusses no culpability or plans for improvement, but Trump$#@!:

I saw no new conclusions, no evidence that Trump directly orchestrated events.  Instead I see more of the same argument:  Trump questioned the election and riled people up about it, and he waited too long to talk.  I see no real concern about the lack of security, the infiltration of the FBI and their impact on the events (a search for "FBI" comes up blank in your article), no discussion about Capitol Police who pulled aside little barriers, turned their backs on the vicious murderous crowd, and ambled among them toward the building.  

I totally agree about the lack of information on the security shortcomings. There was intel that it was going to get bad. The police knew this, and yet the security was pitiful. I find it very telling that this is not being talked about. Same regarding the video of police opening barricades for some protestors. There were obviously instances of collusion between police and some of the protestors. To what extent? But those using that as a talking point in order to downplay events of the day are uninformed at best; video shows us that those were isolated events, and the bulk of the police presence there was involved in quelling the riot.

I'm not sure how you can say there is "no evidence" Trump orchestrated events. Are you conflating evidence with proof, like I see so often? There's evidence that he knew his election fraud claims were all bogus, evidence he colluded with Stone and the various militia groups, evidence that he knew there were weapons present in the crowd and didn't care, evidence that he wanted to be there personally to lead the crowd, stone-cold evidence that he did nothing whatsoever to hinder the riot, evidence he didn't care if members of congress and his own VP were in significant danger, evidence that he knew he could call off the crowd but refused, etc. The evidence is voluminous.

As far as the FBI goes, it's a nothing burger to me based on what I've seen. It just reeks of another cheap right-wing media talking point. Of course the FBI has informants within these groups- that's the entire point of their GD existence! I'd be far more concerned about corruption within their ranks if they didn't. To make the leap from that to the FBI somehow being involved with inciting the whole thing is ludicrous to me, but I'll keep an open mind. I just haven't seen information compelling enough to make that leap. 

My hope is that the DOJ indicts Trump, Bannon, Meadows, and Stone, among others, so we can get on with the process of some real discovery. This is not a partisan issue to me, other than one "side" being culpable for the events on Jan. 6. I'd be just as pissed about it, maybe more so, if a Democratic president did the same things. I want the security questions answered. How much did the FBI know, and who made what decisions with regard to FBI actions and assets that day? I want to know why the National Guard wasn't called in, although I think the writing is on the wall regarding that. I want to know which congressional members were in contact with the militias, Stone, Bannon, et al. I am glad that individuals that perpetrated violence that day are being held responsible for their actions, but if we stop there, it's just another example of the rabble paying the price for the sins of the powerful. Let's hold the powerful responsible for a change. 

[lod001 1,344]

"We got him this time!!!"

  

What a pathetic waste of taxpayer $ via a clownshow of the dumbest focks in congress.

[jerryskids 6,811]

42 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I totally agree about the lack of information on the security shortcomings. There was intel that it was going to get bad. The police knew this, and yet the security was pitiful. I find it very telling that this is not being talked about. Same regarding the video of police opening barricades for some protestors. There were obviously instances of collusion between police and some of the protestors. To what extent? But those using that as a talking point in order to downplay events of the day are uninformed at best; video shows us that those were isolated events, and the bulk of the police presence there was involved in quelling the riot.

I'm not sure how you can say there is "no evidence" Trump orchestrated events. Are you conflating evidence with proof, like I see so often? There's evidence that he knew his election fraud claims were all bogus, evidence he colluded with Stone and the various militia groups, evidence that he knew there were weapons present in the crowd and didn't care, evidence that he wanted to be there personally to lead the crowd, stone-cold evidence that he did nothing whatsoever to hinder the riot, evidence he didn't care if members of congress and his own VP were in significant danger, evidence that he knew he could call off the crowd but refused, etc. The evidence is voluminous.

As far as the FBI goes, it's a nothing burger to me based on what I've seen. It just reeks of another cheap right-wing media talking point. Of course the FBI has informants within these groups- that's the entire point of their GD existence! I'd be far more concerned about corruption within their ranks if they didn't. To make the leap from that to the FBI somehow being involved with inciting the whole thing is ludicrous to me, but I'll keep an open mind. I just haven't seen information compelling enough to make that leap. 

My hope is that the DOJ indicts Trump, Bannon, Meadows, and Stone, among others, so we can get on with the process of some real discovery. This is not a partisan issue to me, other than one "side" being culpable for the events on Jan. 6. I'd be just as pissed about it, maybe more so, if a Democratic president did the same things. I want the security questions answered. How much did the FBI know, and who made what decisions with regard to FBI actions and assets that day? I want to know why the National Guard wasn't called in, although I think the writing is on the wall regarding that. I want to know which congressional members were in contact with the militias, Stone, Bannon, et al. I am glad that individuals that perpetrated violence that day are being held responsible for their actions, but if we stop there, it's just another example of the rabble paying the price for the sins of the powerful. Let's hold the powerful responsible for a change. 

I didn't say no evidence that Trump orchestrated events, I said "directly" orchestrated events, and by that I meant actually coordinated with the groups to take over the Capitol.  Your list after that statement proves my point:  the witch hunt really, really showed he was mad about losing, and he acted like a child in numerous ways.  If anything in your list is a crime then it should be a slam dunk to indict him; if not, well then...

Regarding the barricades being only being removed in strategic areas, it sounds like your theory is that all of the police at those locations colluded with protestors, and all of them at other locations did not.  Statistically that seems unlikely.  Another theory might be that police at certain locations were ordered to stand down, to enable (or encourage, since the vicious mob at those locations could have easily plowed through those barricades if they had wanted, and yet hadn't) a small but not too serious breach of the Capitol.  Which is precisely what happened.  And goodness knows the Left has gotten a ton of blood out of the stone of these events.  

Honest question:  why do we need all of those indictments to look into those questions in your last paragraph?  Should this committee, in its pursuit of truth, had at least asked some of these questions?  It has been going on for a while after all, and they generated an 800 page report.  The reason, which I'm confident you realize, is that the committee had no desire to arrive at the truth of what happened, but rather its true charter was to build a case against the mean orange guy.  And perhaps relatedly, to put some more time and distance between the people and groups in your list, so that the scent weakens.

[jonmx 2,429]

On 12/29/2022 at 10:38 AM, shadrap said:

OMG, we almost lost our country!  Worse by far than the Civil War!

 

They had zip ties.  

[jonmx 2,429]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I didn't say no evidence that Trump orchestrated events, I said "directly" orchestrated events, and by that I meant actually coordinated with the groups to take over the Capitol.  Your list after that statement proves my point:  the witch hunt really, really showed he was mad about losing, and he acted like a child in numerous ways.  If anything in your list is a crime then it should be a slam dunk to indict him; if not, well then...

Regarding the barricades being only being removed in strategic areas, it sounds like your theory is that all of the police at those locations colluded with protestors, and all of them at other locations did not.  Statistically that seems unlikely.  Another theory might be that police at certain locations were ordered to stand down, to enable (or encourage, since the vicious mob at those locations could have easily plowed through those barricades if they had wanted, and yet hadn't) a small but not too serious breach of the Capitol.  Which is precisely what happened.  And goodness knows the Left has gotten a ton of blood out of the stone of these events.  

Honest question:  why do we need all of those indictments to look into those questions in your last paragraph?  Should this committee, in its pursuit of truth, had at least asked some of these questions?  It has been going on for a while after all, and they generated an 800 page report.  The reason, which I'm confident you realize, is that the committee had no desire to arrive at the truth of what happened, but rather its true charter was to build a case against the mean orange guy.  And perhaps relatedly, to put some more time and distance between the people and groups in your list, so that the scent weakens.

The reason they let them in was all the people wanted was to have their voices heard.  There were very few violent people.   People went in screamed a bit.  Walked around and took selfies.  No one was actively looking for politicians.   They were a bunch of random people who did not know each other and did not have any plans or thoughts of any seditious acts against the government.   

[Hardcore troubadour 15,460]

Trump was working with militias. Strong evidence. Good lord. 

[RLLD 4,237]

Did Trump bail any of them out of jail?

[Fnord 2,280]

59 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I didn't say no evidence that Trump orchestrated events, I said "directly" orchestrated events, and by that I meant actually coordinated with the groups to take over the Capitol.  Your list after that statement proves my point:  the witch hunt really, really showed he was mad about losing, and he acted like a child in numerous ways.  If anything in your list is a crime then it should be a slam dunk to indict him; if not, well then...

Regarding the barricades being only being removed in strategic areas, it sounds like your theory is that all of the police at those locations colluded with protestors, and all of them at other locations did not.  Statistically that seems unlikely.  Another theory might be that police at certain locations were ordered to stand down, to enable (or encourage, since the vicious mob at those locations could have easily plowed through those barricades if they had wanted, and yet hadn't) a small but not too serious breach of the Capitol.  Which is precisely what happened.  And goodness knows the Left has gotten a ton of blood out of the stone of these events.  

Honest question:  why do we need all of those indictments to look into those questions in your last paragraph?  Should this committee, in its pursuit of truth, had at least asked some of these questions?  It has been going on for a while after all, and they generated an 800 page report.  The reason, which I'm confident you realize, is that the committee had no desire to arrive at the truth of what happened, but rather its true charter was to build a case against the mean orange guy.  And perhaps relatedly, to put some more time and distance between the people and groups in your list, so that the scent weakens.

I think if he was anything other than a former president it would absolutely be a slam dunk to indict him. The political ramifications drastically change the calculus. Just another example of how the justice system is perpetually rigged not by politics but by money, power, and influence.

I didn't mention barricade removal in strategic areas. I don't know which areas are which. My suspicion is that some of it was due to police sympathizing with protestors, and some doing it because they felt it would be safer to do so. It would be great to get some answers about these events. 

Yes, I think the indictments are necessary to get to the bottom of it. We can see that the spin machine will not allow evidence to be accepted without doing this in an actual court of law. We disagree about arriving at the truth vs. ensuring DJT is ruined. I can accept that it is possible you're right. But, as I've said many times, the vitriol with which Trump was treated during his presidency did not occur in a vacuum. It was well earned. He was uniquely terrible. I think that most conservatives do not accept this, and consider it more akin to politically-related  harassment. This is an excellent example of the disconnect we see amongst groups of people that consume divergent media sources. 

I agree with the plausibility of your last sentence; it's certainly a possibility. Thank you for the good convo.

 

[jerryskids 6,811]

 

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I think if he was anything other than a former president it would absolutely be a slam dunk to indict him. The political ramifications drastically change the calculus. Just another example of how the justice system is perpetually rigged not by politics but by money, power, and influence.

I didn't mention barricade removal in strategic areas. I don't know which areas are which. My suspicion is that some of it was due to police sympathizing with protestors, and some doing it because they felt it would be safer to do so. It would be great to get some answers about these events. 

Yes, I think the indictments are necessary to get to the bottom of it. We can see that the spin machine will not allow evidence to be accepted without doing this in an actual court of law. We disagree about arriving at the truth vs. ensuring DJT is ruined. I can accept that it is possible you're right. But, as I've said many times, the vitriol with which Trump was treated during his presidency did not occur in a vacuum. It was well earned. He was uniquely terrible. I think that most conservatives do not accept this, and consider it more akin to politically-related  harassment. This is an excellent example of the disconnect we see amongst groups of people that consume divergent media sources. 

I agree with the plausibility of your last sentence; it's certainly a possibility. Thank you for the good convo.

 

Had he not been the president there would be no reason to indict him; he'd have just been an angry guy.

I don't want to rehash Trump being "uniquely terrible," but I'll leave you with this thought on the subject:  how was Melania treated by the media?  A woman like her, had she been married to a guy with a D on his side, would have been heralded as the next Jackie O.  Instead she was treated as a pariah from day one.  Trump was never given a chance.  And I'll repeat again that I'm no Trump fan and hope he goes off into the sunset and lets DeSantis take the reins.  But he spent 4 years non-stop fighting the media and the swamp, and they're still at it, so I understand how he might be a little salty.

The problem with your barricade theory is the "felt it would be safer" part.  They casually removed the barrier then walked towards the building with their back to the allegedly "unsafe" crowd.  But we both agree we should get to the bottom of it.  All of that time and money, I'm shocked it wasn't at least investigated a little.

[jerryskids 6,811]

43 minutes ago, jonmx said:

The reason they let them in was all the people wanted was to have their voices heard.  There were very few violent people.   People went in screamed a bit.  Walked around and took selfies.  No one was actively looking for politicians.   They were a bunch of random people who did not know each other and did not have any plans or thoughts of any seditious acts against the government.   

IMO you are supporting @Fnord's assertion that the people who let them in had advance notice of their plans; i.e. they were in with the crowd.  I find it hard to believe that all of the police at place A were in with them, and all of them elsewhere were not.  More likely the police at this location were told by their superiors what you said:  just let them in, they mean no harm and are just going to go walk around the Capitol for a while.

[jonmx 2,429]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

IMO you are supporting @Fnord's assertion that the people who let them in had advance notice of their plans; i.e. they were in with the crowd.  I find it hard to believe that all of the police at place A were in with them, and all of them elsewhere were not.  More likely the police at this location were told by their superiors what you said:  just let them in, they mean no harm and are just going to go walk around the Capitol for a while.

Not in with them, but had no interest in getting in a confrontation.  

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

did they get him yet?

I dont care

 

[dogcows 1,030]

19 hours ago, jerryskids said:

I saw no new conclusions, no evidence that Trump directly orchestrated events.  Instead I see more of the same argument:  Trump questioned the election and riled people up about it, and he waited too long to talk.  I see no real concern about the lack of security, the infiltration of the FBI and their impact on the events (a search for "FBI" comes up blank in your article), no discussion about Capitol Police who pulled aside little barriers, turned their backs on the vicious murderous crowd, and ambled among them toward the building.  

There is plenty of coverage of security issues in the Jan 6 report. You could read it. They even mention the crappy job the FBI did, including walking away from the situation claiming “Capitol Police say they don’t need help at this point, they’ve got it covered."

I’m glad they focused on that instead of wasting time on already-debunked right wing talking points such as Capitol Police letting people in.

Here’s what the person who shot the video of the officers leaving those barricades said:

Quote

But the viral, 14-second video clip that some are using to claim that officers willingly let rioters past barricades and into the Capitol is being misrepresented online, said journalist Marcus Diapola, who shot the video.

"They definitely didn't just open the barriers," Diapola told PolitiFact. "The pro-Trump rioters made a fist like they were going to punch the cops, which is why I started recording. Then (police) backed off the barricades. 

"They were completely outnumbered," Diapola said. "There wouldn't have been any point in fighting."

Diapola said the video was taken around 2 p.m. near the northeast entrance of the Capitol and estimated that the officers were outnumbered "100 to 1," with only around 30 officers spread out between three entrances on that side of the Capitol, compared with thousands of protesters. 

And if you read the report, you can see the timeline shows a call for Capitol Police to pull back and regroup, which is what it appears was happening in that clip.

But you know what? Forget all the above, because what’s really important here is how mean the “media” was to poor little Melania. A true injustice, far worse than the Capitol attack.

[Fnord 2,280]

44 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't want to rehash Trump being "uniquely terrible," but I'll leave you with this thought on the subject:  how was Melania treated by the media?  A woman like her, had she been married to a guy with a D on his side, would have been heralded as the next Jackie O.  Instead she was treated as a pariah from day one.  Trump was never given a chance.  And I'll repeat again that I'm no Trump fan and hope he goes off into the sunset and lets DeSantis take the reins.  But he spent 4 years non-stop fighting the media and the swamp, and they're still at it, so I understand how he might be a little salty.

As far as how Melania was treated, I paid little notice at the time, and don't care. Given his past, her age and profession, and some of the things she did and didn't do and say, in addition to being the least visible first lady in my lifetime, I think at least some of whatever malice was directed at her was earned. Far moreso than some of the nasty things said about Michelle Obama, who was the epitome of class as the first lady. And I'm not an Obama guy. Mostly I just don't GAF about the first spouse. 

As for your comparison, I find it kind of comical you'd bring that up. My rebuttal would be that if a Democratic president had done any of the same stuff that Trump pulled and conservatives love to minimize, you all would have lost your sh!t just as badly as those of us that hate Trump did. Worse, probably. Just another example of divergent media consumption, I suppose.

[jerryskids 6,811]

15 minutes ago, dogcows said:

There is plenty of coverage of security issues in the Jan 6 report. You could read it. They even mention the crappy job the FBI did, including walking away from the situation claiming “Capitol Police say they don’t need help at this point, they’ve got it covered."

I’m glad they focused on that instead of wasting time on already-debunked right wing talking points such as Capitol Police letting people in.

Here’s what the person who shot the video of the officers leaving those barricades said:

 

But you know what? Forget all the above, because what’s really important here is how mean the “media” was to poor little Melania. A true injustice, far worse than the Capitol attack.

The dude shooting the video debunks the entire thing with his statement?  If only his video agreed with him.  Again with the "violent crowd" fear, yet I haven't seen your explanation as to why they showed no fear whatsoever.  But maybe you are correct -- his opinion is beyond reproach so no need for further investigation.  Luckily his opinion fits the Lefty narrative.

I have no intention of reading the entire thing, hence my desire to look for other summary sources.

Nice deflect on Melania, which I used as an example of the media bias against Trump, and you conflate here.  I'm guessing it messes with your cognitive dissonance.  Or you don't really want to have an intelligent conversation.

ETA:  Oops, sorry, I thought this was Fnord.

[dogcows 1,030]

2 hours ago, jerryskids said:

have no intention of reading the entire thing, hence my desire to look for other summary sources.

 

Summaries give their own spin. You’re choosing to ignore the context of the video because you want to ignore it. I could jump onto the road 100 yards from the end of a marathon and a 15-second video could show me as the winner.

The report has an executive summary and is also a searchable PDF.

And are you actually disputing that the Jan 6 crowd was violent? Or am I reading that wrong? Because if so…. wow.

[jerryskids 6,811]

46 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Summaries give their own spin. You’re choosing to ignore the context of the video because you want to ignore it. I could jump onto the road 100 yards from the end of a marathon and a 15-second video could show me as the winner.

The report has an executive summary and is also a searchable PDF.

And are you actually disputing that the Jan 6 crowd was violent? Or am I reading that wrong? Because if so…. wow.

What exactly is the context of the video?  Because you are ignoring the video of the video -- the part where the police slowly pull aside the barrier, turn their backs, and ambled towards the Capitol with no concern for the "violent" mob behind them.  I've mentioned this more times than I can remember but I can't seem to get you to comment on this little conundrum.  There was no "pulling back and regrouping," that's a crock to anyone who honestly watches it.

Yes, you are reading that wrong.  Some people got violent.  But not these people in the video.  And the police seemed extremely sure that that would be the case.

[Horseman 2,468]

They arrest him yet?  Charges filed? 

You'll get him next time for sure.

[jerryskids 6,811]

28 minutes ago, Horseman said:

They arrest him yet?  Charges filed? 

You'll get him next time for sure.

I don't believe the plan was ever to arrest him; the plan by the Left was to keep this around and bring it up when they needed to rile up their sheeple, or distract them from the shiotty state of the economy.  Now that they lost the House, this will just die and they'll blame the Repubs for letting the mean orange man go free$#@!  I feel kinda sorry for the Lefties who thought this was an actual pursuit of truth and accountability.   

[RLLD 4,237]

9 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I don't believe the plan was ever to arrest him; the plan by the Left was to keep this around and bring it up when they needed to rile up their sheeple, or distract them from the shiotty state of the economy.  Now that they lost the House, this will just die and they'll blame the Repubs for letting the mean orange man go free$#@!  I feel kinda sorry for the Lefties who thought this was an actual pursuit of truth and accountability.   

I am on the fence on it really. 

Yes the Democrats and their media allies manipulated people to a large extent of course.  But there is some credibility to the concern, just not at the level they have played it. 

I am really amazed at the Jim Carrey-level overacting, and even more so that people actually digest this stuff as reality.....

I sense that people have thoroughly bought into this manipulation, its fascinating. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,460]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

I don't believe the plan was ever to arrest him; the plan by the Left was to keep this around and bring it up when they needed to rile up their sheeple, or distract them from the shiotty state of the economy.  Now that they lost the House, this will just die and they'll blame the Repubs for letting the mean orange man go free$#@!  I feel kinda sorry for the Lefties who thought this was an actual pursuit of truth and accountability.   

Hasn’t it already been forwarded to the DOJ?