I spent the evening glued to the news and was disappointed with the reactionary response to the protest, which not only condemned the violence, but also the spirit. All that hogwash about an assault on “the citadel of liberty” and "democracy" was laughable, especially given that for the last 4 years we’ve been taught that violent protest was the surest expression of the voiceless. Perhaps if the Trumpers burned down innocent people’s businesses and looted Target the politico-media class would paint a different picture.

For once it was aimed at the guilty. Seeing the picture of lawmakers cowering behind their benches and their armed guards reminded me that these are the people that send young men and women to war. (“Lawmaker” is a specious term. They do not write our laws—hell they don’t even read them—they just sign whatever lands at their desk, more evidence that this “citadel of liberty” is a citadel of incompetence and corruption). And until now, our lawmakers have been mostly insulated from the pestilence they’ve let loose upon the country.

I don't believe you to be someone who posts in good faith, I wouldn't believe your answer. But I will leave you to it from here.

Likewise. But thanks for sparing me the hostility.

I'm not sure what your motives or intentions are.

I suppose you could always ask. But thanks for the advice.

Like you said, lowest hanging fruit.

Literally the lowest possible hanging fruit. Not even hanging just sitting there rotting on the ground.

Fair enough. But remember, you fell for a Borat stunt.

I was wrong for posting that article. I heard of it from the congressional floor. The search for information is a perilous one. I apologize.

Thereby ends the greatest presidency ever. I hope he gets some well deserved repose. History will do the rest of the work.

And now on to total Democrat rule. Let's keep this energy going—shall we move to the Joe Xiden thread?

Well, if there is a gang of violent people descending on you, you may well have a different perception of the situation. Legally, that is a key question. Could this officer reasonably feel under direct imminent and lawful attack? I do not know but it cannot be ruled out. She herself was no direct threat but the whole mob was. She was an unfortunate victim.

They were not attacking anyone, as far as I’m aware. They were certainly breaching the barricade. They were certainly pushing past police and destroying windows and a door. The victim certainly tried to crawl through the broken window. But she was shot before she could get through, as evidenced by her falling back into the room. The shooter, a man in a suit (secret service) was at the other window hiding behind a wall pointing his gun at people. It was like an ambush. He suddenly swung to shoot her as she tried to enter, seemingly without warning or care. I cannot say whether he thought his life was in imminent danger.

Here is a link to the video. It’s graphic.

https://twitter.com/thejaydenxander/status/1347056697899163648?s=21

Had she been attacking him, perhaps. But she wasn’t. The shooter was under no threat.

Yeah, it seemed too suspicious. Fake news.

Everything could be considered being armed if the force wielded is strong enough. The agent running scared and the reporter behind him certainly feared the crowd. Moreover the police present was overwhelmed, what more evidence of an asymmetric ratio of 'fire power' do you need?

If they have no weapons it means they are unarmed, not armed, which is my only point. I'm not going to say the mob wasn't menacing and loud, but even metaphorically it makes no sense to say they were armed. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone had a weapon.

Well, as Hume famously pointed out the fact that you see a billiard ball move after it has been struck by another billiard ball is no logical evidence of one billiard ball moving the other. Here you see a president telling his followers to march to the capitol because nothing has ever been achieved by weakness and the crowd cheering "stop the steal" while they were interfering in the exact meeting in which Biden would be certified. Of course maybe they just wanted to buy tickets to the next Yankees game but it is not likely. They wanted four more years of Trump. They were there to insist on it happening. I do not know how much more evidence you want or how much would convince you. People are not lying. They might see or interpret things differently from you, but of course they are not lying. That is the exact oddness of your position and that of those so angry at you. You take issue with that, this black and white distinction. However, you buy into it too, they must be lying when they see things differently.

It's true they want four more years of Trump, just as the anti-Trump protesters wanted Trump removed. And sure they would insist, as all protesters do, for this or that action. This to me isn't evidence of insurrection, however. So why, exactly, are we pretending this is insurrection? And to hear this after months and months of violent riots throughout America, to the point that entire city blocks were literally seized and occupied by armed groups, boggles my mind.

I don't believe people are lying. My theory is they are gripped in a moral panic.

Who is 'they'? I think those arguments are heard, actually quite loudly. These arguments got this horde on the steps of the Capitol in the first place no? If no one wanted those arguments to be heard they would not have been. I think they are actually heard way too loud.

Only those on this forum who project and fantasize that I am operating in bad faith.

This reminds me of the Hong Kong protesters waving American flags and photos of “swole Trump”. Trump’s spirit resonates worldwide.

How did they occupy the senate building, using potentially lethal force or armed in a way that might enable them to do so or not?

I am not aware if the protesters were armed. DC has very strict gun laws, and in the livestreams I saw, no one was brandishing weapons, save for perhaps some American flags.

I do not think the protests under discussion were similar in intensity. The #removeTrump protests and the disruption of the Kavanaugh hearing were heavily funded by political action committees, but I don’t think they resorted to breaking windows, just making noise, the old heckler’s veto. They berated one Senator, but I do not think he was in any danger.

The trump protesters were not organized at all, but certainly more instance. CNN is comparing this 1812. But I cannot see it. As I watched it live, the protesters were mostly meandering about the building, putting MAGA hats on statues and taking pictures. Level-headed people were yelling not to destroy anything. No statues torn down, no spray paint, no weapons, just people yelling. Then 3 or 4 protesters tried to get past the barricade, breaking windows. The woman then tried to jump through the window, unarmed, and she was executed before she could make it through. I suggest watching the raw footage and come to your own conclusions.

As to the point that this was insurrection, a coup, not protest, there is no evidence of this. There never was. I’d love to see some evidence for this, because I much rather find myself misinformed than having to believe countless people are lying. Who knows? Perhaps some Q nutter thought this was his moment, but have not seen any evidence of this.

And thanks for hearing me out despite the ad hom. They don’t want anyone to hear these arguments, let alone discuss them.

You can be an anti-fascist without advocate for banning all fascist expression. Banning everything just results in fascism going underground and creates a society where there's less transparency and honesty because people know they can't say certain things.

Chomsky made this point quite brilliantly in regards to Holocaust denial and anti-fascism. You shouldn’t try to suppress the fascist’s speech, you should try to win the argument.

Huh? They intended to stop the proceedings which would have proclaimed Biden the president elect... or was it just coincidental and does it happen every odd Monday morning?

That doesn’t seem much worse than people literally calling for the removal of the president while occupying the senate building. The thing is there is no evidence of any “intent to seize power” outside of the fantasies of the gutter-press, who for months now have convinced themselves of an impending coup. It’s been a rally and a protest all along.

I’m not aware of anyone intent on seizing power, and find no rhetoric to that effect. Perhaps you can enlighten me. I was under the impression it was a protest.

President Donald Trump is now banned from Facebook.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/trump-twitter-ban/

Big Tech is censoring the president of the United States. Fuckerberg donated around $400 000 0000 to elections, some of which was spent on equipment that processed mail-in ballots, so it’s no wonder he suppresses dissent. Each day we become more and more like China.

Gender is a category of noun. That’s the only definition that matters nowadays given the heated debate over the topic of gender identity. I don’t even think Butler is wrong. But I refuse to use such a contentious term, and stick to “sex” to describe flesh-and-blood individuals.

↪Brett I don't actually know the specifics, but from all the news I've been seeing there seems to be a clear consensus that some crime was committed today, by the people storming the capitol. I would guess that at the very least bringing weapons into a government building like that is probably illegal, and even if not that, that there are restrictions on entry into at least some parts of that building if not the building as a whole, since I sincerely doubt it's lawful for just anyone to rummage through e.g. Pelosi's office

It certainly is a crime. When protesters “stormed” the senate building a couple years ago, 600 protesters and a Dem Congress-woman were arrested occupying the senate building. When people protested back in January about impeachment, 41 protesters were arrested doing the same shit. During the Kavanaugh hearing, even celebrities were arrested occupying the senate building. Just in June of last year, George Floyd riots ripped through Washington.

The only difference is how these people are being portrayed in the gutter press: one group as terrorists, a violent mob, and the rest as concerned protesters and activists. I do not remember congress or the senate saying it was an attack on democracy when protesters occupied, disrupted and sometimes accosted its members.

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and Congressmen and women”

So violent. The doublespeak has begun.

Facial recognition firm claims antifa infiltrated Trump protesters who stormed Capitol

Trump supporters say that antifa members disguised as one of them infiltrated the protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday.

A retired military officer told The Washington Times that the firm XRVision used its software to do facial recognition of protesters and matched two Philadelphia antifa members to two men inside the Senate.

The source provided the photo match to The Times.

One has a tattoo that indicates he is a Stalinist sympathizer. antifa promotes anarchy through violence and wants the end of America in favor of a Stalinist-state. “No more USA at all” is a protest chant.
XRVision also has identified another man who, while not known to have antifa links, is someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.

I wouldn’t doubt it.

The police let them in, they got their photo-op of “democracy under attack”, killed a veteran, and dipped.

Observe the “Twitter-verse”. The same people who abused the euphemism “mostly-peaceful protest” as mobs burned down and seized entire blocks of cities are screaming terrorism because of a few broken windows and strewn about papers in the capitol building. Clown world.

Many more people will die from Ohio's new stand your ground because a black person walking up to a white person is inherently threatening.

No, you cannot discern an inherent threat from a man’s skin-color.

I don't even know what NOS stands for.

That’s me.

She was veteran storming the capitol building only to be gunned down by police. It’s tragic.

Yes and that is bad. Indeed Trump's presidency began with riots and the country is deeply polarized. An invasion though of these building is something different than a riot or a threatening situation. I wonder actually why you think the White House was not taken by protesters / rioteers. That is a serious question by the way, I am interested in your take on it.

I think it was a mix of good fencing and police force. But you’re right. I don’t know why these people were allowed to get in the capitol building, or why they bothered to do so.

They probably don’t work right now, what with our trial run of socialism. Either way, I think we have a different conception of patriotism.

But I agree with you about the Republicans. They are an essential part of the Uniparty.

Yeah, also in Pelosi's office? I was blissfully unaware your seats of government were stormed on a regular basis.

Or was it rioting? Something that is not to be condoned of course and a cause for arrest, but it is different from storming a government building. There is a reason why such places are often heavily guarded. The same reason why the US govt objects when in another country their buildings are stormed and rightly so. They also discriminate between riots and the storming of government building, the harassments of journalists etc.

Also, not too long ago there were riots immediately outside of the Whitehouse, in May I think. It turned quite violent and destructive, with the president sent to his bunker.

All of this started from day one, Trump’s inauguration, outside of which was a riot. Politics has been heated ever since.

Ohh, was a woman shot, bombs found in the halls, thugs breaking windows? Or was it a war of words in which eventually the outcome of democratic procedure was accepted?

Well, something like 80 people were arrested. But I’m not comparing the two.

It was internet-roots, stewed in conspiracy theories for years. It's all fantasy.

Don't you realize that?

Far better than the state, corporate and media-funded conspiracies we’ve all had to listen too for years now. It was only a few days ago former pentagon officials and their media propagandists were warning us that Trump might use the military to remain in power. Instead he called for peace and for people to go home.

When did leftists storm the Capitol?

Probably the Kavanaugh hearing. I believe the new Vice President even spoke there.

I excused myself from work just to watch the livestreams. What a day.

This was grassroots civil disobedience at its finest, not that corporate-funded, celebrity-endorsed astroturfing we’ve been inundated with for the past few years.

Though the most racist and money-grubbing organization of the last millennia has once again taken power, a growing party of working class patriots forms beneath them. As Trump’s power wanes the movement he championed will carry on.

You’ve shown adequately why one shouldn’t appeal to the dictionary. At best dictionaries record current usage of a term, not what it should or should not mean, nor what it has meant in the past or what it might might mean in the future. It’s ridiculous to confine a discussion to a dictionary definition.

But the purpose here is to draw attention to people who claim as a matter of right under freedom to do what they want...

I enjoy your take on duty and freedom, but I depart from the logic after we leave Kant’s thinking and venture into your own.

If I recall correctly, Kant mostly limits his coercion to those who hinder freedom, so I’m not sure he would advocate penalizing those “who claim as a matter of right under freedom to do what they want”.

I think it’s laudable to say one has a duty to be safe and avoid the risk of harm, and one is free to do so, but once this principle is forced upon others or they are penalized for risk, I think we have the realm of freedom into its opposite.

Have you watched any of the 'stop the steal' protests? The speakers, before indicating where supporters can donate money to the cause, literally do their best to inspire religious fervor in their audience, with countless appeals to God in the fight against evil. Frankly, it's surprising that it's not more effective. I suppose this demonstrates how religious faith is in decline, or rather that it's really about tribalism and not actual faith for many.

The phone conversation between Trump and the Georgia secretary of state is yet more evidence that Trump doesn't need to be demonized. His character and selfish motivations are painfully apparent.

I have seen what you described. A lot of these people are god-fearing people, and the language of good and evil suffices to describe what they’re up against. I do fear that it is only a matter of time until they resort to violence, not just against those disrupting their gatherings, censoring and beating them, but also innocent people.

Religious faith, to me, has not disappeared, but been has recast towards other orthodoxies such as social justice, intersectionality and critical race theory. I also believe that the nascent demand for moral leadership from our politicians is one aspect of that. A transactional president like Trump is virtually foreign to them, and it’s why all this piffle about “healing” and “coming together” worked so well for Biden.

No, I said I understand Trump’s paranoia. He’s their folk devil, and they exhibit the religious fervor of a moral panic. He cannot trust anyone.

I don't see much evidence for "widespread voter fraud", a phrase commonly uttered in the gutter-press. But I understand Trump's paranoia. Entire institutions, even within his own government, have been weaponized against him. So I wouldn't mind seeing an audit of some sort.

Whether or not the activity is illegal you express love for this sort of activity. In other words, you love it when a president appears to uses their power to pressure a secretary of state to commit voter fraud. Good people don't love such things. Or perhaps you love it when Trump begs like a whiny dog?

A far more adept politician would buckle under the public pressure, but instead Trump is doing right by his constituents, most of whom believe Biden is illegitimate and voter fraud affected the outcome. That’s why I love it.

What illegal activity are you suggesting?

The point isn’t to try convincing you of illegal activity, the point is that you “love” such activity, and that a person who loves this sort of activity is not a good person.

I never said I love “illegal activity”. This is why we get strange conclusions from false premises, or in this case, lies.

Is Assange really in jail and solitary confinement because he failed to appear in court in connection with allegations of sexual misconduct that have since been formally dropped due to lack of evidence? This is a stain on the UK justice system.

It holds more weight than starting vast investigations premised on rumors, such as crossfire hurricane and the Mueller report.

They should investigate all the states. They should investigate both parties. I see nothing wrong with an independent, transparent investigation, and nothing you've said convinces me otherwise.