I've seen bits and pieces of stories about conservative protesters storming the capitol building, and while I certainly don't have all the details, I'll say this for now.
1. I certainly am disappointed and ashamed at the behavior of these protesters. I expect better from conservatives and can't imagine what could have justified this behavior.
2. I guess of you are going to storm someplace, it makes more sense to storm the capitol, where decisions are made and where the decision makers are, than to storm the businesses and residences of innocens.
3. I haven't heard that there has been any destruction as of this writing, but if there is, let's remember to apply the same standards to these protesters that we applied to those from this past summer.
4. Before those on the left get up on their high horses, and pull out the righteous indignation, let's compare the amount, consequences, and disruption of "protests" from the left, with this one incident.
As usual, I respect the right of people to protest and publicly express their grievances. Of course, once it stops being peaceful, then they lose my respect and they deserve whatever consequences they incur.
Update: It appears that president Trump has deployed the national guard to quell the disturbances. It took Walz days or burning and looting to make that decision, and even longer to implement it.
"I hate rioting of all types, no matter who is doing it. But lots of people today are trying to erase recent history. The fact is that left wing rioters invaded police stations and burned them to the ground, and were not arrested for doing so. That happened just a few months ago. All of this nonsense that the police would be coming down harder if they were left wing protesters--were you unconscious all last summer? Whole city blocks were burned while the police watched passively. We all saw it. "
Matt Walsh
"The message of last summer is clear: violence works"
Vaiv
"It's llike feeding a dog every time they start begaving poorly in order to get them to stop. If violence and insurrection elicit hange, people are more inclined to use that option than civility"
Hi 5
64 comments:
let's remember to apply the same standards to these protesters that we applied to those from this past summer.
The protesters LAST summer were objecting to being killed and harassed by police. A legitimate protest. Amid the protest, SOME TINY minority of opportunists engaged in looting and they were wrong. But they weren't the protesters... no evidence of that that I've seen.
THESE protesters are NOT protesters but rioters interfering with democracy, trying to prevent a legal election from being certified and trying to undo the work of democracy.
Don't confuse the two.
One group (trump's proud boys) are trying to overthrow and undermine a legitimate election.
The other group was/is opposed to injustice.
Not the same.
As to Trump: He INSTIGATED the rioting repeatedly making stupidly and dangerously false claims that the election was stolen and that he won. This morning he even repeated the same false claims and said "let's go down to the Capitol..." and then he left.
You can't rile people up, tell them stupidly false claims and get them to believe you, tell them to "go to the capitol" and THEN, when the actually ACT on your stupidly false claims say, "hey, you shouldn't have done that."
He will be remembered for instigating a lame-assed coup attempt by a bunch of impotent morons, not for quelling it.
The arsonist does not get credit for calling the fire department after the fact.
But thanks for NOW taking the time to mildly condemn what was inevitable weeks ago when Trump began his assault on facts and democracy, but people like you and McConnell and Pence are a little late to the game. The time for condemning the instigation of rioting was back when the instigations and false attacks began, not after the fact.
I wonder if the violent ones are really LEFTIST plants to make conservatives look bad.
It’s interesting that when I see video and first hand accounts from the participants, I see an entirely different picture than the news is showing.
Glenn,
I’ll point out that we were told repeatedly this summer, that “plants” were the problem, so it’s possible that this is the case here, I don’t have enough information to have a sense one way or another.
Really, condemning those who crossed the line from peaceful protest, while it’s happening isn’t fast enough for you. Mind what I said about applying the same standards used last summer to today’s incident. You stayed silent for quite some time, about the carnage last summer, then came out with bland scolding and excuses.
I’ll dissect your first comment (specifically and by paragraph/sentence) as per my usual practice when I’m not on my phone.
I’ll simply point out that you are not the arbiter of the appropriateness of a protest, and that the constitution doesn’t limit protests based on what you think should be allowed.
Craig... "It’s interesting that when I see video and first hand accounts from the participants, I see an entirely different picture than the news is showing."
I suppose you don't see the irony in reality that we pointed this out to you all with the protests Last Summer. On the ground while it's happening, we saw the protest actually being peaceful and rational. But you all wanted to paint all BLM is violent Lueders. Even though there was never any proof that BLM did any of it. Not a single bit of evidence.
Of course, the other irony is that, of course it was inevitable when Trump kept on and kept on and kept on telling his useful idiots that the election was being stolen and we were criminals and that Democrats and liberals were attacking democracy by taking the election from him... and all of it, every single damned word of it false and stupidly false... but it was sufficient to stir up his useful idiots.
So it was inevitable that this would happen, Republicans are telling us today, yes of course this is inevitable Trump's actions were going to lead to this... and not only was it inevitable, Trump supporters kept saying that this is what was going to happen. They would storm the capital. They would take back democracy, as if it had been taken.
It hadn't but that's what the idiot in Chief was telling them that and they were believing because they're useful idiots and that's their role.
So even though this was inevitable, even though this is clearly right wing proud boy militia wannabes, even all that's true, you and Glenn want to entertain the notion that, Hey!, maybe it's actually liberals?
Open your eyes. You all have got to start standing up in a more strong manner against Trump and his damnably false lies. When you don't, this is on you. This is on McConnell. This is on Pence. This is on people who want to pretend to be rational but who do not step up and call out the dangerous lies for what they are.
“Please show me where protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful.”
"The protesters LAST summer were objecting to being killed and harassed by police. A legitimate protest. Amid the protest, SOME TINY minority of opportunists engaged in looting and they were wrong. But they weren't the protesters... no evidence of that that I've seen."
1. Who anointed you the arbiter of which protests are "legitimate" and which aren't?
2. On what objective basis do you make those judgements?
3. Prove your "tiny minority" claim.
4. I literally sat and watched local news coverage that showed thousands of people actively engaged in burning, looting, and destroying, vast amounts of private property, stop with the "tiny minority" bullshit.
5. If it truly was a "tiny minority" why did the vast majority allow this "tiny minority" to get away with their depredations? Why did the majority impede LE from punishing the "tiny minority"?
6. Exactly how many "unarmed" blacks were killed in 2020?
7. Is the destruction of over 2 billion dollars in property (virtually all of it owned by private citizens who were innocent) really "legitimate"?
"THESE protesters are NOT protesters but rioters interfering with democracy, trying to prevent a legal election from being certified and trying to undo the work of democracy."
Actually, the reality is that the majority of the protesters were peaceful. A minority of the protesters did riot, yet somehow caused minimal damage, and left of their own accord after a relatively short period of time. No, they were not trying to undo the work of "democracy".
"Don't confuse the two."
Oh, I won't. It's pretty easy to distinguish between one side that spent days/weeks/months engaging in wanton destruction, burning, looting, and terrorizing innocents and the other who spent a few hours, running around the US Capitol, broke some windows and some signs, then left of their own accord. When DC was literally in flames from left wing demonstrators in May, you and yours didn't get this worried.
"One group (trump's proud boys) are trying to overthrow and undermine a legitimate election."
If this is true, then they failed miserably. They came, they went nuts for a couple of hours, and they left. That's hardly an overthrow.
"The other group was/is opposed to injustice."
Interesting. I've never thought that burning the property of innocent bystanders, depriving business owners of their livelihoods, depriving immigrants and the poor of access to food and medicine, stealing booze and TV's, endangering innocent lives, was justice.
Without condoning the actions of the rioters at the capitol, at least they aimed their anger in the right direction.
"Not the same."
Not at all. I saw no one yesterday burn anything, steal any TV's or booze, spray paint graffiti, throw rocks or Molotov Cocktails at police, destroy 2 billion dollars in mostly private property, or take over a section of a city. So, you are right about that.
"As to Trump: He INSTIGATED the rioting repeatedly making stupidly and dangerously false claims that the election was stolen and that he won. This morning he even repeated the same false claims and said "let's go down to the Capitol..." and then he left."
I can and have pointed out that numerous public officials made inflammatory statements that could be construed as instigating the massive, violent, carnage we saw last summer. Yet, those don't seem to have bothered you. I'm not defending Trump in any way, this is just one more example of a time when he should have said nothing instead of something.
"You can't rile people up, tell them stupidly false claims and get them to believe you, tell them to "go to the capitol" and THEN, when the actually ACT on your stupidly false claims say, "hey, you shouldn't have done that.""
Again, not to excuse Trump in any way, but if you can't say the same thing about all rioters, then it's just hypocrisy.
"He will be remembered for instigating a lame-assed coup attempt by a bunch of impotent morons, not for quelling it."
Speaking of false narratives. This idiocy of calling this a "coup" or "insurrection", just makes y'all look and sound hysterical. They literally left on their own accord, they literally didn't even try to seize power. It was a mostly peaceful protest that some turned into a very short (and mostly damage free) riot.
"The arsonist does not get credit for calling the fire department after the fact."
1. Had we not seen the events of the summer of 2020 unfold as they did, it's unlikely yesterday would have happened the way it did.
2. I can't help but wonder how much of the outpouring of anger expressed in the riots over the summer, as well as yesterday, can be attributed to the fact that we've been under varying degrees of lock downs for months, with the promise of more to come.
3. What people like Dan miss, is that when the same people who excused, justified, and downplayed the rioting last summer get all self righteous about what happened yesterday it reeks of hypocrisy.
"I suppose you don't see the irony in reality that we pointed this out to you all with the protests Last Summer."
No irony at all. I watched hours of local news coverage, saw plenty of "home video" from people I know, and (at least here) it's absolutely absurd to ignore the reality that a significant percentage of the people were engaged in, supportive of, or protecting the rioters.
"On the ground while it's happening, we saw the protest actually being peaceful and rational."
Except, we didn't. We saw some of the protests start as "peaceful and rational", I guess you could call threats of violence "peaceful and rational". I personally wouldn't, but I guess you can.
"But you all wanted to paint all BLM is violent Lueders."
How interesting. You choose to build your case on the foundation of a lie. Not just a lie, but a blatant lie. A blatant lie that you've made repeatedly, and been repeatedly corrected regarding this false claim. I guess it's Ok for you to base your anger on blatant lies, while criticizing others for the same thing.
In all seriousness. You either need to IMMEDIATELY prove the claim you made above (as it applies to me specifically), or apologize. While I have no doubt that there are people who have done so, I HAVEN'T and for you to broad brush me in with those who might have don so is simply false.
"Even though there was never any proof that BLM did any of it. Not a single bit of evidence."
I'll point to the fact that BLM incited this sort of thing. When BLM the most common BLM chant is a direct threat of violence, it's hard to completely let them off the hook. I've pointed you to the Just Thinking podcast and their excellent analysis of BLM and the false narratives it's built on, yet you've chosen to ignore those particular black voices and the truth they speak.
So, I'll leave you, your false narratives, and your lies right here.
Craig... "1. Who anointed you the arbiter of which protests are "legitimate" and which aren't?"
All adults have a responsibility to take sides on violent actions and attempts to oppress people.
Trump and his supporters are pursuing undoing an election with their stupidly false claims is an oppressive action, not a liberating one.
We must take sides.
Black people who have had a centuries long history of being oppressed up to and including today - black people and their allies are taking a stand against this oppression, against being shot while black by the police. They are taking a righteous stand against oppression.
We must take sides.
Do you disagree?
"2. On what objective basis do you make those judgements?"
Reason. Morality. Honesty. Decency. If we can't agree on the basics of these matters as a matter of objectively proving it, we NONETHELESS must take reasoned stances on matters of oppression.
That is, EVEN IF I can't prove to you objectively that slavery is a great evil, NONETHELESS, reasonable, moral people need to take a stand against slavery that is reasoned and moral.
Do you disagree?
"3. Prove your "tiny minority" claim."
? I see NO data that shows ANY BLM supporters have engaged in violence or looting. I'll say that again: I SEE NO DATA that shows ANY BLM supporters have engaged in violence or looting. To the degree that it may have happened by some that are perhaps marginally allied with BLM, I see NO DATA to say it's anything like a large minority.
IF you have data that shows otherwise, present it. I'm not obliged to prove the innocence of those working for justice. IF you want to make a case against them, that's on you.
"4. I literally sat and watched local news coverage that showed thousands of people actively engaged in burning, looting, and destroying, vast amounts of private property, stop with the "tiny minority" bullshit."
I'm willing to bet that you LITERALLY did no such thing. I'm willing to say that you can NOT show "news coverage" of "thousands of people" who are actively engaged with/supportive of BLM burning, looting or destroying. That's a serious claim and THAT CLAIM is BS. BUT, if you can present data that shows you're factually correct, you'll have me on your side condemning those "thousands."
You can't do it and you won't do it precisely because you can't.
The ball's in your court. Until you 1. present that data or 2. Admit that claim is BS, it remains BS.
Really. Dan's perspective is the typical leftist whitewashing of their own behaviors and the culpability for and enabling of those behaviors.
Evidence of infiltration:
https://parler.com/post/33b7e107edc94b2194f9c3148e460a9f?fbclid=IwAR1xL0OTgEm69yEKQVyXiAiRpmelXQVJPXtOc1wMRxdpAUlHr1IxJ4AJISE
I hope it opens for those not on Parler. Note I said "evidence". Unlike some, I don't conflate "evidence" with "proof".
I'd love to see some evidence...proof would be better...that Trump "instigated" this violence. What did he say exactly that compelled this specific response? Did he say something like what these people have said:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/viral-video-shows-leading-democrats-promoting-uprisings-unrest-harassment
"The protesters LAST summer were objecting to being killed and harassed by police."
Which was a lie. This lie was obvious given the thugs whose deaths they were lamenting...thugs who were killed resisting arrest. The left still defends these dregs of society as we've seen with the dismissal of charges against the cops in the Jacob Blake case.
But this unrest is supported by the cornucopia of evidence suggesting election fraud and the unwillingness of government to investigate or even review said evidence. Dan likes to pretend none exists, but he's a liar. He also likes to pretend that those who are aware of the evidence needed Trump to tell them it exists. I'd love for Dan to make the case that it all originated from Trump alone. That would be a first.
Craig... " not to excuse Trump in any way, but if you can't say the same thing about all rioters, then it's just hypocrisy."
1. BLM was actively DISCOURAGING rioting. If you were familiar with these efforts, you'd know that.
2. Trump is actively ENCOURAGING and fomenting unrest. Again, listen to what McConnell, Romney and many other Republicans are saying today. This is squarely on Trump. Join with your fellow Republicans in denouncing his part in this.
3. There is a quantitative difference between people actively believing and promoting a false narrative ("stolen election," "trump won," "Democrats cheated") who then overpower the police and disrupt the Capitol and the election process because of their attachment to a lie and Black people and their allies being outraged about the killing and systemic oppression of black people.
LOOK at the difference between the police response to BLM protests over a righteous cause (tanks, militarized responses) and the kid glove treatment of the white zealots taking over the Capitol yesterday. THAT is the evidence (in part) of the systemic racism inherent in the system.
The merit and just nature of acts of Civil Disobedience rise and fall with the righteousness and just nature of the Cause. Sure, some slavers engaged in civil disobedience in their "fight" to keep slavery. But the immoral nature of their cause means their CD was immoral, unjust and unrighteous.
Agreed?
Craig... "1. Had we not seen the events of the summer of 2020 unfold as they did, it's unlikely yesterday would have happened the way it did."
Bull. Shit.
It's the color of their skin and their politics that protect and incite them, not the events of last summer.
You DO recall when the armed white angry conservatives overtook the national parks building (Malheur) a few summers ago. What happened to them? Oh, that's right. Nothing, not for weeks into their illegal and unjust armed assault on the Parks Department.
Why is it that THOSE earlier conservative instances of armed insurrection by white conservatives not the incentive for yesterday's assault on Democracy? That you want to take a clear assault on freedom and blame black people for it is part of the problem.
No false narratives, here on my part. Let's unite around the truths involved and the great injustices of yesterday's assault on freedom.
Craig... " This idiocy of calling this a "coup" or "insurrection", just makes y'all look and sound hysterical."
Mitch McConnell: "They tried to disrupt our democracy. They failed. This failed insurrection only underscores how crucial this task is for our republic."
Mitt Romney: described the storming of the Capitol as “an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States”
You'll have to take this up with the many Republicans and conservatives who are recognizing an insurrection when they see one and recognize the instigator when they hear his words.
Is Mitch McConnell sounding "hysterical..."?
Dan,
I'll start by saying that just because you can cherry pick some republicans who use the "insurrection" language (I'll note that none them used your more inflammatory/less accurate coup language), doesn't mean that you or they are accurate. Unlike you, I don;t tend to agree with things based on the R or D behind someone's name. If I disagree, I disagree.
"Bull. Shit."
No, not Bull. Shit., reality. We saw a movement, with BLM as the primary "face" of the movement, which proceeded to riot, burn, loot, destroy, occupy parts of cities, and then some, with virtually no negative consequences. Further, to some degree or another, the rioters got what the wanted. (or at least lip service from the DFL controlled cities, counties, and states that they destroyed) We say that threatening violence, and following through on those threats, got the dialogue that they wanted. No, when threats of violence, and violence "work", then it encourages others.
"It's the color of their skin and their politics that protect and incite them, not the events of last summer."
Racist much? Of course, even if that's true, the example set last summer of rioters freely burning, looting, and occupying various cities for days on end, set the precedent.
"You DO recall when the armed white angry conservatives overtook the national parks building (Malheur) a few summers ago. What happened to them? Oh, that's right. Nothing, not for weeks into their illegal and unjust armed assault on the Parks Department."
Are you really suggesting that a few nuts (between 6 and twelve according to reporters) who took over an isolated parks department building in the wilderness, did some minor damage (excessive feces is so much worse than burning and looting), and ended up arrested (a total of 26), is comparable to thousands of people wantonly destroying multiple cities, destroying 2 billion dollars in property, endangering innocent people, and destroying the employment and livelihoods of thousands of people. Either you're an idiot, or the ability to compare apples and oranges is completely lost on you.
"Why is it that THOSE earlier conservative instances of armed insurrection by white conservatives not the incentive for yesterday's assault on Democracy? That you want to take a clear assault on freedom and blame black people for it is part of the problem."
Because those "conservatives" (FYI, the cited the Mormon scriptures as motivation, why not call them Mormons?) all ended up in jail, didn't get away with their crimes, and didn't succeed in threatening/rioting the DFL leaders of cities/counties/states into appearing to accede to their demands.
"No false narratives, here on my part. Let's unite around the truths involved and the great injustices of yesterday's assault on freedom."
Except the false narrative where you lump me in with unidentified others and refuse to prove your claim or retract it. Oh, and the false narrative that BLM was founded on.
"All adults have a responsibility to take sides on violent actions and attempts to oppress people."
Which would seemingly involve opposing all violent actions equally.
"Trump and his supporters are pursuing undoing an election with their stupidly false claims is an oppressive action, not a liberating one."
Not unless failure is now oppression.
"We must take sides."
Really, what gives you the authority to declare what "we" must do?
"Black people who have had a centuries long history of being oppressed up to and including today - black people and their allies are taking a stand against this oppression, against being shot while black by the police. They are taking a righteous stand against oppression."
Looting, burning, endangering the lives of innocent people, occupying sections of cities, killing retired black cops, threatening violence, attacking police with deadly weapons, etc., is your idea of righteous? Got it.
All that bullshit, and you couldn't even answer the question that was asked.
"We must take sides."
Really, what gives you the authority to declare what "we" must do?
"Do you disagree?"
No, I agree with Wilfred Reilly (a black voice you'd probably ignore). "I actually don't see a major difference between rioting because you falsely perceive the country as "genocidal", and rioting because you falsely perceive the election as provably stolen. Rioting is bad, the power of the state should put down riots." "All violent riots should be brutally broken up by extreme state force-mob rule must never be tolerated."
"Reason. Morality. Honesty. Decency. If we can't agree on the basics of these matters as a matter of objectively proving it, we NONETHELESS must take reasoned stances on matters of oppression."
Then please start with providing an objective definition of "Reason", "Morality", "Honesty", and "Decency". then provide the objective grounding as to why those things give you the objective standing to make these sorts of pronouncements.
"That is, EVEN IF I can't prove to you objectively that slavery is a great evil, NONETHELESS, reasonable, moral people need to take a stand against slavery that is reasoned and moral."
The above makes absolutely no sense. You are essentially arguing that your opinion (if you can't objectively prove something then opinion is the default category), about something requires that other people do things based on your opinion. Of course, you still haven't quite gotten around to an objective moral standard either. I'll give you credit, thinking that your opinion has that much power is impressively prideful of you.
"Do you disagree?'
Yes, I disagree that your opinion about anything has or gives you the power to compel or expect others to act in the ways you prescribe.
"against being shot while black by the police."
And Dan likes to pretend he isn't an inveterate liar. Please link to any recent event wherein anyone was shot "while being black" by police. If you can't, then apologize to the black community for perpetuating this myth that is provoking so many of them to violence.
"I see NO data that shows ANY BLM supporters have engaged in violence or looting. I'll say that again: I SEE NO DATA that shows ANY BLM supporters have engaged in violence or looting. To the degree that it may have happened by some that are perhaps marginally allied with BLM, I see NO DATA to say it's anything like a large minority."
You do understand that "I see..." doesn't prove anything. It's more of an excuse for not having to prove your hunches and opinions. It's clearly predicated on your bizarre construct that the only way to attribute anything to "BLM" (in any sense) is for the perpetrators to be carrying BLM membership cards or some such bullshit. The fact the you blind yourself to the reality that (at least here) the rioting was entirely birthed from BLM protests. You think that the BLM model of decentralized leadership and lack of any "official" membership insulates them from any responsibility. Too bad you don't apply that same sort of myopia to everyone.
"IF you have data that shows otherwise, present it. I'm not obliged to prove the innocence of those working for justice. IF you want to make a case against them, that's on you."
Ahhhhhhhhh, the "I can't prove my claim, so I'll make up a claim, attribute to to someone else, and demand that they prove the claim I made up." dodge. Just admit that you can't prove your claim and move on.
"4. I literally sat and watched local news coverage that showed thousands of people actively engaged in burning, looting, and destroying, vast amounts of private property, stop with the "tiny minority" bullshit."
"I'm willing to bet that you LITERALLY did no such thing. I'm willing to say that you can NOT show "news coverage" of "thousands of people" who are actively engaged with/supportive of BLM burning, looting or destroying."
KARE11, FOX9, WCCO TV, KSTP, if you want to go through and watch the archived hours of footage, go right ahead. The reality is that you won't because you revel in the ambiguity of your subjective "supporters of BLM" bullshit. The reality is that virtually every news organization, I've ever looked up referred to these riots as being affiliated with, spawned from BLM. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the rioters interviewed repeated BLM talking points, that the graffiti left was BLM slogans, and that the signs and shirts carried and worn all parroted the BLM party line.
"That's a serious claim and THAT CLAIM is BS. BUT, if you can present data that shows you're factually correct, you'll have me on your side condemning those "thousands.""
Your lies are simply brazen. You've made excuses, and justifications for the rioters, you won't condemn them now.
"You can't do it and you won't do it precisely because you can't."
No, I won't because you're too damn lazy to go through the (days worth of) archived footage of the local news stations. Because, even if you did, you'd look at it through your prejudices and preconceptions, and just maintain your forgone conclusion. Just like you wouldn't listen to one podcast, where 2 black voices speak truth about BLM, you won't do your on research, even when pointed in the right direction. You're too lazy to do the work, or too scared that you might be wrong.
"The ball's in your court. Until you 1. present that data or 2. Admit that claim is BS, it remains BS."
This is quite the brazen dodge, you can't/won't prove your claim, so you make up a claim that you demand I prove to hide the fact that you can't/won't do what you demand of others.
The ball's in your court. I've pointed you toward the primary source material, it's up to you to do the research. But until you prove the claim you made, it makes absolutely no sense for me to prove a claim subsequent to yours.
"1. BLM was actively DISCOURAGING rioting. If you were familiar with these efforts, you'd know that."
Really? Please provide poof. They certainly weren't on the ground here publicly calling for an end to the riots. They certainly weren't actively helping LE find and prosecute the rioters. They were certainly engaged in inflammatory rhetoric, threats of violence, and giving the rioters cover.
"2. Trump is actively ENCOURAGING and fomenting unrest. Again, listen to what McConnell, Romney and many other Republicans are saying today. This is squarely on Trump. Join with your fellow Republicans in denouncing his part in this."
I already have.
"3. There is a quantitative difference between people actively believing and promoting a false narrative ("stolen election," "trump won," "Democrats cheated") who then overpower the police and disrupt the Capitol and the election process because of their attachment to a lie and Black people and their allies being outraged about the killing and systemic oppression of black people."
How many unarmed black people (who weren't being apprehended for a crime) were killed by LE in 2020? Yes there is a quantitative difference between a few hundred demonstrators/rioters who entered the capitol, did some minor damage, and left of their own accord and thousands of protestors/rioters who engaged in wanton destruction across multiple cities, over days and weeks of time, and are have threatens to do more of the same. One of those two is MUCH larger and more destructive than the other.
"LOOK at the difference between the police response to BLM protests over a righteous cause (tanks, militarized responses) and the kid glove treatment of the white zealots taking over the Capitol yesterday. THAT is the evidence (in part) of the systemic racism inherent in the system."
Yes, look at the police standing aside, for DAYS in MPLS allowing the rioters to burn and loot at will. Look at the rioters threatening the FD units who were trying to put out the fires, save those threatened, and treat the injured. This simplistic "it's all about race" bullshit ignores the reality that the LE who faced the BLM inspired riots this summer saw (and ignored) the fires, destruction, looting etc. What exactly had these idiots yesterday done previously that compares to the destruction from this past summer? It's comparing apples and bullshit, and totally stripping away any context and simply blaming it on race. Hell, let's compare the aftermath of any conservative rally/protest (tea party etc) with those of liberal groups (occupy, CHAZ, etc). Again, strip away context, filter through prejudice, and pick the most simplistic answer that fits the narrative.
"The merit and just nature of acts of Civil Disobedience rise and fall with the righteousness and just nature of the Cause."
I love it when you try to add gravitas to words by capitalizing them when they shouldn't be. But if you want to excuse threats of violence, and actual violence is "Civil Disobedience", go right ahead.
"Sure, some slavers engaged in civil disobedience in their "fight" to keep slavery. But the immoral nature of their cause means their CD was immoral, unjust and unrighteous."
Again, you haven't established an objective moral code that justifies your conclusions, so this is pointless and absurd.
"Agreed?"
That you tacking a one word "question" on to a comment full of bullshit (which I've responded to in detail) is an incredibly stupid rhetorical device, yes I agree that it is.
“This is a coup attempt.” - Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)"
Again, who the hell cares.
"I actually think that coup is probably not the best term for yesterday, given the random and lame-ass nature of these idiots. A coup attempt gives them too much credit."
As does "insurrection". Part of your problem is that you tend to broad brush everyone in a "group" with the worst possible motives and absolutely refuse to acknowledge the possibility of anything outside of your conclusions. While attributing the best possible motives to those you agree with. It's your preconceptions and prejudices.
"They're useful idiots who are willing to be stoked into dangerous action by a dangerous leader. Nonetheless, conservatives, moderates and liberals the world over recognize the dangerous and incendiary words and actions of trump and his useful idiots. You should not minimize it. This is a day that will live in infamy."
Yes, this is on par with Pearl Harbor. I thin we know who the idiot is here.
"I oppose all oppression equally. These privileged white people are whining and plotting about a fake Injustice based on a false claim that the election was stolen are not being oppressed. They are the oppressors. I'm opposed to them because what they want to do is to deny votes to others. They are the oppressors. The oppressors are the ones doing the violence. Not the oppressed. Do you understand that? Now, when an oppressed group has been pushed till some part of them resort to violence, it must be understood that that violence is the result of the oppressor, not the oppressed. For example, if a woman who has been beaten and threatened by her husband for years suddenly kills him because she feels like it's the only way to escape, that murder is on the oppressor, the husband. Not the wife. She may share some culpability and need to own up some portion of responsibility, but that murder happened because of the oppression of the oppressor, the husband. The base cause of that violence was the oppressor. Not the oppressed. That's one thing you need to understand when it comes to understanding history and reality correctly. Especially the history of oppressed people. Do you understand that?"
I understand that I asked you about opposing all violence equally, and that you dodged that question by pivoting to some bullshit "oppression" narrative. Complete with idiotic hypotheticals and everything.
I may parse this idiocy later, but for now pointing out the fact that you changed the subject so you wouldn't have to condemn all violence equally is enough.
I'd really love to hear exactly what Trump said that constitutes incitement for yesterday's riots. Did he encourage violence? How? What comment or comments specifically can be held as such? I didn't listen to his speech at the rally, but I've seen no comments broadcast that resemble the type of incitement we've heard from Dan's people, such as Maxine Waters' encouragement to "get in their faces" wherever a lefty loon encounters a Trump supporter.
The fact is, I have no doubt Dan listened to Trump's speech...or any of them over the last four years, for that matter.
If the protesters yesterday were black, maybe we would have seen more pictures of uniformed police kneeling in front of them or of black officers standing silently while protesters screamed racial invective in their faces.
Of course this illustrates the problem of broad brushing all the members of any group based on the actions of the few. Because the reality is that we did see plenty of officer’s kneeling or arm in arm with protesters, but we also saw many officers standing in silence while being verbally and sometimes physically attacked. This is why I’ve drawn a line between those who were peacefully protesting and those who weren’t. Obviously there was crossover, and it’s impossible to separate BLM/ANTIFA etc from all the events of last summer. But it sure is easier to demonize all cops because of the behavior of a small number of cops.
Questions: Do you realize that the whole world saw what happened yesterday and people across the whole world were horrified? Thinking this sort of nonsense doesn't happen in the US (although we DO cause it in other places, fwiw).
Do you recognize that the whole world sees the difference between BLM protests (and riots associated with them) and this mob attack of the Capitol?
Do you recognize that, while not all of us are using the same words - coup, assault on Democracy, insurrection, disaster, atrocity, unprecedented - that this is being seen as fundamentally different than last summer's BLM protests (and the riots associated with them)? And that this is being recognized by mainstream conservative Republicans as well as moderates and liberals?
Do you recognize that this will be a buttstain on Trump's buttstain of a presidency and forever cement him in the bottom five of US presidents?
Just curious.
So true, Craig. But then, you're not a lefty, so you think clearly and observe with an open mind.
Craig... "“This is a coup attempt.” - Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.)"
Again, who the hell cares. "
There was a riot that invaded our nation's Capitol, interrupting the process to enact the will of the people in a national election.
The riot was stirred by an ongoing, month-long campaign of rumors, conspiracies and outright false (stupidly false) claims by the PRESIDENT of the US.
The outrageous and dangerous nature of Trump's actions and words is being recognized by people the world around, including many conservatives and Republicans, including former Trump allies, even, and you say, "Who cares?"
!
Save yourself, man. This is serious misconduct. Step to the side of people around the world, conservative and otherwise, and recognize that Trump's actions have been criminal and/or insane and join the rest of us in condemning this outrageous misconduct by the president.
“ Do you realize that the whole world saw what happened yesterday and people across the whole world were horrified?”
Do you realize that the same “whole world” has been silent as the Chicoms have been forcing Uighers into concentration camps? Do you realize that the same “whole world” was silent when leftists burned DC? Do you realize that the opinion of the “whole world” doesn’t determine right or wrong? Do you realize that the same “whole world” has decided that some of the worst violators of human rights, should be represented on the UN human rights commission? Do you realize that this is a shitty argument?
“ Do you realize that the whole world saw what happened yesterday and people across the whole world were horrified?”
Do you realize that the same “whole world” has been silent as the Chicoms have been forcing Uighers into concentration camps? Do you realize that the same “whole world” was silent when leftists burned DC? Do you realize that the opinion of the “whole world” doesn’t determine right or wrong? Do you realize that the same “whole world” has decided that some of the worst violators of human rights, should be represented on the UN human rights commission? Do you realize that this is a shitty argument?
“ Do you realize that the whole world saw what happened yesterday and people across the whole world were horrified?”
Do you realize that the same “whole world” has been silent as the Chicoms have been forcing Uighers into concentration camps? Do you realize that the same “whole world” was silent when leftists burned DC? Do you realize that the opinion of the “whole world” doesn’t determine right or wrong? Do you realize that the same “whole world” has decided that some of the worst violators of human rights, should be represented on the UN human rights commission? Do you realize that this is a shitty argument?
"Do you recognize that the whole world sees the difference between BLM protests (and riots associated with them) and this mob attack of the Capitol?"
I would hope that the "whole world" could see the difference between the occupation/incineration of sections of multiple American cities (including DC) over an extended period of time, and the short term mob running amok on the US Capitol. It's a pretty stark difference.
"Do you recognize that, while not all of us are using the same words - coup, assault on Democracy, insurrection, disaster, atrocity, unprecedented - that this is being seen as fundamentally different than last summer's BLM protests (and the riots associated with them)? And that this is being recognized by mainstream conservative Republicans as well as moderates and liberals?"
Again, maybe you're memory isn't that great and you've missed me pointing out the differences. One difference is that the media and the political left was much less condemnatory of the BLM/rioters and the carnage last summer, than over yesterday. Conservatives, for the most part, have condemned both.
"Do you recognize that this will be a buttstain on Trump's buttstain of a presidency and forever cement him in the bottom five of US presidents?"
In the interest of consistency, I'll repeat that the Trump presidency is too fresh and to caught up in the emotional to accurately analyze at this point.
"Just curious."
No, I doubt you really are.
My "who cares" was in response to the fact that you found some republican who used the term "coup", not to the events of yesterday. What happened yesterday wasn't a coup or an insurrection, it was a bunch of pissed off out of control people who went semi berserk. That isn't to excuse or minimize what actually happened, it's more about realizing that the overheated rhetoric doesn't help either.
"I oppose all oppression equally. These privileged white people are whining and plotting about a fake Injustice based on a false claim that the election was stolen are not being oppressed. They are the oppressors."
Unfortunately, were talking about violence, not "oppression". "Oppression" is just you changing the subject.
'I'm opposed to them because what they want to do is to deny votes to others."
Really, please prove this claim. Please prove that the folks who stormed the capitol want to "deny" votes to people legally qualified to vote.
"They are the oppressors. The oppressors are the ones doing the violence."
This makes absolutely zero sense. Under this bizarre formulation, either the BLM/rioters/CHAZ/ANTIFA folks are either the oppressors, or they aren't violent.
"Not the oppressed. Do you understand that?"
Yes, I understand that you are preparing to justify the looting, burning, occupation, killing, destruction of innocent people's livelihoods, and endangerment of innocent life was all justified.
"Now, when an oppressed group has been pushed till some part of them resort to violence, it must be understood that that violence is the result of the oppressor, not the oppressed."
Really, I was right. You are justifying/excusing/rationalizing the wave of violence that primarily affected the oppressed. The mothers who couldn't get food and supplies for their babies weren't the oppressors. The businesses destroyed and looted were owned by immigrants, not oppressors. Essentially, you're arguing that the rioters/looters were oppressing those who had less power than they did. What a stupid, insane, attempt to make revolutionary heroes out of thieves and arsonists.
"For example, if a woman who has been beaten and threatened by her husband for years suddenly kills him because she feels like it's the only way to escape, that murder is on the oppressor, the husband. Not the wife."
Actually, that's not true across the board. Further, the wife in this case has other avenues short of murder to escape the situation. But, I have to admire you going all in on justifying violence and threats of violence. I'm sure the minority and immigrant families who've lost their businesses will be comforted by the notion that it was their fault.
"She may share some culpability and need to own up some portion of responsibility, but that murder happened because of the oppression of the oppressor, the husband."
Again, this is a simplistic and poor choice of an example.
"The base cause of that violence was the oppressor. Not the oppressed. That's one thing you need to understand when it comes to understanding history and reality correctly. Especially the history of oppressed people. Do you understand that?"
I understand that you just spent an entire comment justifying the carnage and destruction that blazed across the US last summer. What's hilarious is that you are too stupid or blinded by partisanship to realize that months of burning, looting, and depredation, didn't hurt the "oppressors" at all. All of this violence was aimed at the wrong target. In the case of the riots here in the Twin Cities, the "oppressors" aren't the people who lived, owned businesses, and shopped along Lake St and University Ave. Those people, the people who were harmed, were innocent. They are African American/Somali/Ethiopian/Hispanic/Hmong/Karen/ among others. They were the owners of grocery stores/department stores/drug stores/banks/and the like who chose to invest in areas of the city that had been historically undeserved. The fact that you and the idiots who destroyed so much think that those are the "oppressors" and that causing those people harm is a good plan, just reinforces the stupidity of your attempts to justify violence. The fact that the real "oppressors" got off unharmed, stayed in office, got the city to spend thousands of dollars to protect them, hid behind walls/fences/ and barricades, while people like you cheer them on is pathetic.
You keep supporting the violence that harms those at the bottom of the ladder, while letting those in power keep their power. More hypocrisy and double standards, it's what we expect from you.
"I understand that if I literally do not see any data to prove a claim then all I can say is, I do not see any data to prove that claim."
A statement that means absolutely nothing with regard to the truth of anything. It's just a dodge so you don't have to prove your claims.
"And as you can see in the very next lines that follow the comment for me I said if you have data that proves the claim, present it."
You keep expecting me to proves claims that you make, that's not how it works.
"That is how communication work. If I have no data and I'm not aware of any data that proves a claim, then I have no reason to believe that claim. You understand this, right?"
then don't make claims you can't prove, and don't expect me to prove claims that I haven't made.
"And if I say that and you do have data that proves the plane, and you want me to believe the claim, then the onus is on you to prove your claim, not for me to find that which I am not aware of. What about this is troubling or hard for you to understand and? Come on. this is just reasonable. That you are presenting no support for your claim makes me think that not only do I see no data to support your claim, you probably don't HAVE any data to support the claim, yourself. If you do, present it. Be an adult. That's all."
More bullshit. I'll point out that I have pointed you to the primary source(s) that will allow you to evaluate for yourself what was shown on our local news. If you choose to ignore that, it's not my fault.
"Sadly, you appear to be soul sick in your continued attacks against the justice warriors of BLM. You've been blinded or misled, one. Open your eyes. Listen to black people, don't condemn them."
Sadly, you appear to be completely delusional and are simply inventing positions that you attribute to me out of whole cloth. That you are reduced to lies and ad hom attacks, speaks volumes.
Of the over 10 BILLION dollars raised by BLM, how much of that has gone directly to support the families of the victims of police violence?
How many "unarmed black men" were killed by police in 2020?
"No, I don't realize that and don't agree that it is a bad argument. If a flawed and imperfect world can all come together, right and left, USA and everyone else, and recognize, "Hey! THIS is truly horrible!" then on what basis would we guess that the whole world is wrong? While it is certainly true that just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it right, SOMETIMES, when the whole world joins in recoiling in horror (9/11, Rwanda - eventually, etc), it's because the action is truly horrible."
1. I'm not saying that the events at the capitol weren't horrible.
2. You realize that an argument from numbers is a logical fallacy, don't you?
3. The problem isn't that people are referring to events at the capitol as horrible, it's that all of these people were silent when rioters affiliated with/under the flag of BLM/etc burned down sections of multiple cities over a period of months. It's not the outrage over the capitol that's the problem. It's the silence over everything else.
"You are correct that the whole world can miss a lot of stuff and be wrong for not knowing about it or concerned about it. That doesn't answer my question."
Thanks for acknowledging the obvious. Yes, your question was answered. I'm sure you'll be answering mine very soon.
"I'm truly curious: Do you not recognize that the whole world is aghast at this - including large numbers of conservatives and Republicans and former Trump allies?"
Do you not realize that my problem isn't with their response to what happened at the capitol, it's with their silence as sections of multiple American cities were burned, looted, occupied, and desecrated, with impunity.
"No, is an okay answer, if you're not aware of it. Or, if you are aware that people across political lines, across ideologies and across national borders are horrified at what Trump has done and that it's led to this?"
Asked and answered.
"You see, my concern is that the Trump useful idiots/true believers... that they don't get at all what's wrong with Trump."
You see, my concern is that the left has it's own useful idiots whose silence or justification for the destruction visited on some of the poorest areas of multiple American cities, causes them to react hypocritically the events like yesterday. Who go to great length to validate, justify, and rationalize much greater violence and destruction which harmed or threatened to harm innocent people, while exaggerating the (admittedly horrible) actions of a few hundred out of control idiots.
"And my further concern is that there is another line of conservatives who don't like Trump and don't support him, but fail to fully understand what is wrong with him. "I hate that he's a pervert and a braggart and a loud mouth," they may say, but fail to point to his attacks on the media and attacks on facts as the far greater concern than merely being a braggart and that he's a sexual predator, not merely a man-slut/hedonist. That kind of thing. And so I ask."
And I answer. A also ask, yet you don't answer.
"Since almost no one opposes all violence equally - almost certainly including yourself - I answered in a way that clarified what it is I'm opposing."
Since you do such a shitty job of it, stop trying to speak for me. I'm tired of you making shit up and attributing it to me, then choosing to ignore my requests that you demonstrate the accuracy of your claims.
"I oppose all violence equally that is in the service of Oppression."
In other words, you don't oppose "all" violence. You cherry pick the types of violence that you deem politically acceptable, and twist yourself in knots trying to align your newfound love of "right" violence with your claims of pacifism.
"That's a rational answer."
No, it's a self serving answer that let's you cherry pick which violence you love based on your partisanship.
"Do you think I'm wrong for opposing all violence equally that is in the service of Oppression? But opposing ALL violence equally?"
I'm not sure about wrong. But I am sure that it makes your support of violence subjective, inconsistent, and irrational. The fact that you're supporting violence that caused significant harm to the "oppressed" minority and immigrant communities of the Twin Cities, while ignoring those who are actually in charge of the "oppressive" system simply illustrates my point.
"What about the violence of an armed police officer shooting a killer who was shooting other innocent people? You aren't saying that both violences are equally bad, are you?"
No, but I'm not the one who's argued for years that the police should be limited to non violent means to deal with violent criminals. I've always acknowledged that violence has a role in society. I'm not the one who's advocated for strict pacifism up until it was politically expedient to embrace violence against and harmful to innocent bystanders.
"I don't think you are, but you can clarify. Since you don't believe that we should oppose all violence equally - right? - and I don't believe that and probably almost no one believes that, I was defining what it is I do oppose. Does that not make sense?"
Everything you do makes sense once one understands that it's all about self serving, partisan, ends justify the means, by any means necessary, tactics to advance your political and social narrative.
Craig... "I understand that you just spent an entire comment justifying the carnage and destruction that blazed across the US last summer."
Unfortunately, you're reading and yet continue to not understand.
No. I am not justifying any violence. The violence against any innocents is wrong. Period. So, repeat it to yourself, over and over. "I do NOT understand. I do NOT understand... Dan is NOT justifying violence..."
Keep repeating until you understand.
I am not justifying violence. I'm laying the violence at the people responsible for the violence... the oppressors, not the oppressed.
Craig, just do this... anytime you THINK you are reading and understanding my words, just assume you're wrong. The odds are against you correctly understanding me, as you demonstrate so thoroughly in all... ^ THAT.
Good Lord, I don't know how anyone could read my words and, time and time again, get my position exactly opposite of anything I've said.
Well, maybe start by trying to understand how just make shit up and attribute it to me and demand I prove the shit you made up.
But no answers to any of the questions you were asked.
Two comments, zero questions answered. More trying to blame others for the harm cause to innocents by “justice warriors”, What a load of shit. You’re really suggesting that the black folks who ran out of Chicago Lake with armloads of free booze or out of Target with big 4K TV’s are striking a noble blow against oppression? That the folks who burned down hundreds of units of affordable housing were striking back at “oppression”? That the folks who robbed and trashed multiple Habitat houses aren’t responsible for their actions.
Here’s another question for you to ignore.
1. In the twin cities of MPLS/StPaul, who specifically (within the past 40 years) are the “oppressors” who control the “racist systems”? Although I once went through those who control Louisville and named individuals, I’ll be satisfied if you can come up with specific positions to ID the oppressors.
Just one more question to ignore.
We’ve reached the point where my responses continue to parse Dan’s comments by directly quoting and responding to each section, while Dan’s become shorter and less directly connected to what I said. Paraphrases, not quotes. Questions, not answers. Soon, we’ll reach the point where Dan starts to feign indignation as a way to lay the groundwork for his exit.
I watched a video of the "storming of the Capitol". It was actually a compilation of several videos from people who were there, including the fellow who was presenting. The first thing one sees is the "host" himself among the people. Then it pans to what surrounds him, which was a veritable sea of people as far as the eye can see...one of the more massive crowds of which I've seen at any previous pro-Trump rally. The host estimated a million based on his personal experience attending events of 100,000. I won't argue the estimates, but only affirm it was one freaking huge crowd...absolutely massive. In one direction alone it seemed to stretch to the horizon, and he who was doing the filming panned in a 360 degree circle.
The host narrated each part of the video, which also had some captions describing and pointing out certain points of interest. At the this point, I must mention that his purpose was to demonstrate how the media failed...again...to accurately report the salient details of the episode. One of those details was the fact that those who were breaking doors and windows to enter the building were Antifa. He identified a number of those present by what they wore, including the usual black outfits, with helmets, some with goggles and most with MAGA hats worn backwards.
He showed how cops...at least a few shown...were waiving in the people beyond the gates erected around the building as barricades...that is, letting them in. When the crowd got to the building, he pointed out those who were doing the damage and then showed other protesters...Trump supporters...interfering with their attempts to get in the building. As some were pounding on windows and doors with various instruments, including an American flag (the pole onto which it was mounted was the bludgeon), you can hear people screaming things like "Antifa no!" and other such expressions of displeasure against those doing the damage.
When it begins to show rioters on the inside, one again sees uniformed people...Capitol police, I believe. I don't think they were DC police...waiving them in. There's a scene of another cop confronting a number of them at a door (who was filming this from behind the cop is not clear) and as the host says, it totally appears the guy was play-acting...poorly...a lame attempt to bar their entry. As he backed away, letting them in in effect, he continued making these wussie actions that seemed less than half-hearted, even when he picked up something to use as a nightstick type of instrument (could've actually been a nightstick...not sure). He then made weak swings with this as he backed up the stairs. It was more of an escort when you look at it.
The video then goes on to show a couple of people who are identified as Antifa, matching them with pics of their presence at other Antifa riots or gatherings. I believe there were three, or two and then the last guy, who was a close up of a dude bragging about their triumph of invading the Capitol building and having more law enforcement coming. This guy absolutely, clearly and without the equivocation we've come to expect as routine with Dan Trabue, proudly admit his membership with Antifa.
I'm not sure how I can capture this video to post here. It was from a tweet that someone on FB messaged to me. I couldn't seem to find a way to email it to myself so that I could create a link to it here.
I will say that the comparison pics of the two or three dudes I saw were not facial recognition tech, but simply two pics of the same dude...one set for each. You may have seen the dude with the viking outfit and painted face. He was one of them and while the face was painted differently, tats on the arms proved it was indeed the same dude. I didn't catch it well enough, but one caption when this dude was talking into a camera, had a caption that mentioned this dude and pedophilia. I didn't rewind it to see it again as I got distracted by what happened next. I'll have to review it. What happened next was while this viking dude was talking and bragging, someone told him the person filming him "wasn't a friendly".
So to summarize, the same people Dan's been falsely portraying as "justice warriors" (that's hilarious!) were present at this event and those responsible for breaking into the Capitol building while the Trump supporters were opposing them. I've no doubt that it is here where Dan would again alter his pacifist position to disparage the Trumpers for not physically preventing his "justice warriors" (I'm telling ya...that cracks me the hell up!) Now, I'm not going to say that all the people in the building were Antifa. I don't believe the dead chick was. But if one wishes to speak of incitement to commit this crime and place blame for the dead and injured, this is one of a few pieces of evidence that strongly suggest we must look to those vaunted "justice warriors".
What kind of a-hole refers to arsonists, looters, vandals and violent trespassers as "justice warriors"? (Rhetorical question. The answer is clear.)
Dan,
As usual, I'll do my normal parsing and responding to your comments when I have more time. I do want to note a few things quickly.
1. The fact that you come up with creative excuses for not answering questions, is still you not answering questions.
2. As to the "St Paul" question, both your reference to the question, as well as your excuse for not answering the question, indicate that you very likely did not read the whole thing.
3. I'm really not interested in hearing you repeat your rationalizations/justifications/excuses/blaming of others, regarding the riots last summer. The fact that your "justice warriors". You can do all of that you want, I just really don't care. The bottom line is that you won't condemn the rioters last summer with even a fraction of the vehemence you spew at the rioters at the capitol. Your hunches about excuses and blame just don't interest me and don't matter.
4. The simple fact that the vast majority of the damage inflicted by the rioters last summer directly harmed the "oppressed" not the "oppressors", simply means the the rioters were harming and "oppressing" those already "oppressed".
5. If you'd choose spend less time repeating your hunches under the guise of "explaining yourself" and answer the questions asked...
Oh hell, repeatedly pointing out your failure to ask questions is a waste of my time.
The oppressors Dan supports:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/americas_black_farmers_certainly_deserved_better_.html
https://rumble.com/vcke4f-joe-biden-says-black-lives-matter-protestors-would-have-been-treated-differ.html
These guys make some good points, but actually who set this up is something we really need to confirm. They believe the cops waived in the people believing they wouldn't be destructive, given there next to no history at all of conservative groups like Trump supporters being destructive. They also believe that because cops on the street generally are appreciative of Trump and conservative support for them in the face of the leftist calls to handcuff their ability to do their jobs.
But is Capital security the same as run of the mill cops? The lack of personnel can be due to those in charge, more often than not lefties, hoping for this type of behavior to further disparage Trump and his supporters, as well as to grease the skids for more fascistic policies damaging to liberty so loved by the Democratic party and their supporters. This too makes sense. That is, there's no reason to have enough personnel to prevent the breach, because conservatives have no history of assaulting people in the way, for example, BLM has done to people in restaurants. Thus, the politicians were never in danger. Even if, as evidence is showing, the leaders of those actually doing the breaching are Antifa, their desire to infiltrate for the purpose satisfied their purpose. Assaulting the politicians wasn't necessary since the purpose was to make Trump supporters look as fascistic and destructive as they are.
Nonetheless, the vid is entertaining as the Twins always are. Listen to these black voices.
"To your St Paul question, it's easy: I don't know about the local politics in most cities in the US, including St Paul. Do you?"
Then you didn't read the question. When I didn't know that information about Louisville, I looked it up. It wasn't hard.
"Now, YOU can take a turn."
This implies that you've actually answered any of the questions you've been asked in this thread, and that I haven't. Since both of those are false, it's literally not time for me to take a turn.
"Do you understand that I literally have not advocated or defended any violence. Noting that oppressors are to blame for violence, ultimately, is literally NOT defending violence, its putting the blame on the right people. Do you understand now how you were mistaken?"
I love it when you combine semantic games, with self contradictions. I've used more descriptors for what you've done than "defend". One of those is "excuse", which you've done here by absolving the rioters of blame for their actions.
"Craig, if you could quit being totally wrong on each thing you THINK I think, I wouldn't have to spend so much time trying to correct your misunderstandings and could move on to your questions."
Impressive excuse for ignoring questions. The fact that you choose to bitch about my taking your words literally, and fail to actually provide specific examples of where I'm wrong, isn't my fault.
"But you do not understand. You've just added more completely wrong claims about what you think I think. Communication becomes nearly impossible. Answering your false claims IS answering you."
Yet, all you've done is make vague claims about what you think I've said, or argue against shit you've simply invented and attributed to me. In the absence of direct examples, and quotes, you haven't demonstrated anything to be false, let alone answered anything.
"So, I stated that you almost certainly don't oppose all violence equally and rather than agree with me, you say that I do a shitty job of stating what your view probably was. AND YET, you turn right around and admit that I was precisely correct in assessing your view."
What in the hell is the point of this? You take one example, where you tried to turn my position into a negative and to make it sound like I agreed with you, and use it to ignore the multiple times you've just made shit up. Of course, it still obscures the point, which is the fact that you are the one who's advocated strict pacifism and been critical of any and all violence, until now when you embrace leftist political violence.
"So, can you admit that I was not mistaken about your view, just as a starting point, and that the "shitty job" comment was belligerent and not necessary and, in this case at least, precisely false? Then, as a next step, can you admit that when you've stated MY position on violence, you got it exactly wrong? Just establishing some reality. Secondly, a case in point: You state that I am " the one who's argued for years that the police should be limited to non violent means to deal with violent criminals." I have not done this. It's a false claim. I have not said that, IF the police have people shooting at them or at innocent bystanders, they should not consider violent - even deadly - response to that threat. I have not done that. It is not my position. I've never said that, nor suggested it. It is a false claim/bad understanding of my position. Now that I've clarified your stupidly false conclusion and claim about my position, can you acknowledge that you were mistaken I HAVE said that, if the police are investigating a black man for selling loose cigarettes, that black man should not end up DEAD from that encounter, because of course he shouldn't. Or that, if the police suspect a drug dealer of criminal behavior, they should not bust into his black ex-girlfriend's apartment in the middle of the night and kill her in her bedroom, even though she was innocent of any crimes. Because of course they shouldn't. But they were not violent criminals. Just citizens. That is not the same as what your claim. Do you understand that?"
Of course I understand your self serving narrative. What you've done is to take isolated incidents, and use them to justify a narrative that isn't supported by data.
"1. The rioters and looters last year were wrong."
Thank you for making my point.
"2. The right wing rioters who did it to make BLM look bad and sow violent unrest - and were caught so we know this happened - were wrong to do so. For many reasons. As well as those right wingers who didn't get caught, if there were others, as seems likely."
Ahhhhhhh the bullshit "tens of thousands" of "right wing" folks poised to overrun the twin cities narrative.
"2. The opportunists who rioted and looted for their own reasons were wrong."
Such harsh language.
"3. IF there were any BLM or liberal rioters who caused harm to any innocent people or businesses (I don't know of any, but guess there were some), they were wrong, too. If their reasoning was that hundreds of years of being nice was not resulting in a change of the oppression the black people were experiencing, and first of all, the years of Oppression were wrong and white people were wrong to turn a blind eye to it. But if they exist, any liberal protesters were wrong too, because it undermines the cause."
Interesting, in that I'd say exactly the same thing about the capitol rioters, that it undermines the cause and presents a false narrative. Obviously the best way to fight "hundreds of years" of "oppression" is to steal gallons of booze and HiDef TV's, then burn down the homes and businesses of immigrants and POC.
"4. The cops who shot, attacked, sprayed with gas and otherwise instigated violent responses were wrong."
Really, are you suggesting that the cops shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves? That responding to riots is "instigating" violence? That using non lethal means to attempt to disperse crowds of rioters that outnumber the cops is always wrong? See, you just can't condemn violence on your side without shifting the blame or coming up with excuses.
"In short, ALL who loot and riot and cause harm to innocent people are wrong to do so, AND if there is any systemic oppression leading up to it, the oppressors are primarily wrong. Do you understand?"
I understand that you believe this opinion. I also understand that it's just your opinion designed to shift blame from one group of liberals to another.
"The difference between last summer's protests and any rioting associated with them and these mob riots this week is that the protesters last year were fighting an actual, demonstrable injustice whereas this week's rioters and their supporters were protesting based upon lies and conspiracies. Trump actually lost the election and lied about it for months, deliberately riling up useful idiots, priming them to do violence in the name of lies and oppression. Understand?"
Actually, given the fact that BLM is founded on false narratives, and that the (alleged) evidence of election irregularities hasn't actually been considered by the courts, I'd say that both sides believed strongly that their motivational narrative is true. Unfortunately, only one of those narratives has actually been examined well enough to be proven false.
You just can't go after your own side with the same vitriol and vigor as you do for the other side. Thanks for demonstrating that. It is the closest you've come to denouncing the rioters from last summer, so I guess it is progress.
"1. When you say i cherry pick because I do not oppose all violence equally, you're implying there's something wrong with what I'm doing."
Not "wrong", just inconsistent. In this case, we're specifically discussing violence (and the threat of additional violence) intended to influence political or judicial outcomes. Not any other kind. When you try to hide behind other kinds of violence, it just obscures the actual topic at hand.
"You, too, do not oppose all violence equally. That's what you said. This is what I said about your position. Because of course not all violence is the same. Circumstances matter. Punching a kid for no reason is one thing. It's wrong, clearly. On the other hand, a woman using a knife to stop a rapist from assaulting her is another thing. Not all violence is the same. This is just obvious."
You stating the obvious isn't the point. We're talking about violence or threats of violence intended to affect political or judicial outcomes. Self defense is immaterial.
"But when you say I cherry pick, you're suggesting something nefarious in what I'm doing. This is misleading."
Not "nefarious", inconsistent and hypocritical.
"You and I are the same on this point. We agree that not all violence is equally wrong Do you understand just that much?"
Yet, I've never advocated for strict pacifism or that using violence to oppose the Axis was problematic.
"2. Further, I don't cherry pick what violence acceptable for political reasons. That is not only false, it is stupidly and blindly false. Anyone who knows me, Anyone who reads what I read, would know how stupidly false that is. Don't be ridiculous. Don't be blinded by your own politics."
OK, if you say so.
"3. I oppose violence from oppressors precisely because it is wrong. It is an affront to human rights. That is literally and specifically and definitively NOT a political position. All people, regardless of politics, should be able to agree that causing harm to innocent people, the oppressing of people... that such violence is simply wrong as a matter of Human Rights. There's nothing, zero, political about that. That is why I oppose violence from oppressors. Don't make bullshit claims like that. It undermines your credibility. Unless you're saying that you think Democrats believe in opposing violence from oppressors but Republicans are fine with it? Is that what you're suggesting? Because I would never say that about Republicans or conservatives. Do you understand your errors, now?"
So are you now suggesting that it was the correct policy decision to remove Saddam from power? Or are you suggesting that he wasn't enough of an "oppressor" to bother with?
Of course, when you advocate for voting for the "oppressors" (at least the political party that has had control of the "oppressive", "racist" institutional power structure in the Twin Cities, it dilutes your point. As does you introducing this "oppression" language into the discussion at all. The notion that you can excuse, justify, rationalize, or mitigate that actions of the rioters in 2020 by expressing your hunch that "it's not their fault", is simply ridiculous.
"But I'm not inconsistent. Your failure to understand doesn't mean that I'm inconsistent."
No, your inconsistency is what makes you inconsistent.
"As I said: I consistently oppose all violence in the service of oppression."
Which is a subjective distinction that allows you to endorse/excuse/blame others/rationalize/etc violence on the left.
"Same as you, I think."
Whatever.
"I'm opposed to violence in the service of oppression that intends to influence political/judicial outcomes. The point is, it's not the "intention to influence political outcomes" that's the problem, it's the violence in the service of oppression."
This makes absolutely zero sense. You literally have leftists threatening violence if the MPLS ex cops aren't convicted. You literally have protesters threatening violence of they don't get the political outcomes they want. You seem to have this bizarre notion that if police defend themselves, or prevent protesters from doing whatever they want, or use non lethal means of crowd control, that they are "oppressing" people. But again, as long as you can add in this subjective "oppression" language, you have the freedom to pick and choose which violence you want to condemn and how harshly you want to condemn it.
"I fully support trying to influence politics non-violently. AND, I understand violence (while not supporting it) by the oppressed towards the oppressor and rightly lay the blame primarily at the feet of the oppressor when that happens."
I understand that you want to use this subjective excuse to absolve people of blame for the harm and damage they caused.
"That is, if the man wasn't abusing his wife, if the rapist weren't trying to rape, if the gov't weren't supporting slavery, THEN the oppressed who responded violently would not have responded violently."
The problem is that you've conflated legitimate self defense (the rapist in the act of raping and the victim shoots the rapist), with slavery which was outlawed over a hundred years or so at the federal level, and longer in many states. In the US currently, the most common type of "slavery" is by those involved in the sex trade, which isn't what's being protested. The problem is that the "oppressed" (who've never been slaves") aren't engaging in violence against those in power (with a few minor exceptions). They're engaging in violence against those who have less power than they do, and are simply "oppressing" others. Then these rioters/protesters show up at the polls and vote for the exact same people/political party/political philosophy which has been "oppressing" then for the last 40+ years.
"Do you understand? Feel free to ask, if you don't. Craig... "I've never advocated for strict pacifism" Again, your failure to understand my position (ie, I have not advocated for "strict pacifism" and have always allowed that circumstances make a difference) is not an indication of my inconsistency, it's an indication of your lack of understanding."
I'd go back and pull some of your quotes, but it'd be a waste of my time. But, please define the limits you see on your pacifism. Why would I ask more questions, when all I've gotten in response to the questions I've asked is excuses?
"What I'm TELLING you is that the reality on the ground that I have seen (and I've seen ZERO evidence contradicting it) is that these protests have been mostly (99.9%) peaceful UNTIL the cops started shooting with rubber bullets and otherwise at them and gassing them. THAT is when the chaos began, typically, often. That is, there was NO NEED for them to "defend themselves" from peaceful protesters. It was some in the crowd of peaceful protesters who started fighting back WHEN THE POLICE initiated violence. Don't speak of that which you are ignorant of."
OK, then provide the objective proof that the "protests" were "99.9% peaceful until the cops started shooting rubber bullets".
I've given you the information you need to look at primary source data from the twin cities, although I'm sure you haven't.
Unfortunately, you've chosen to ignore the reality that over the last few years these "peaceful protesters" have threatened to kill cops/engaged in unprovoked attacks with deadly weapons/laid siege to (with Molotov Cocktails and other deadly weapons) a police precinct/etc. I'll ask again, who controls the police? Who controls the "racist" systems?
"If you are saying that BLM advocated or is responsible for people stealing booze and TVs, then you are full of shit."
No, I'm saying that the protesters/rioters at protests organized and promoted by BLM engaged in those activities and worse. All the while BLM stood by and made no attempt to stop the behavior.
"I'm trying to be respectful, but this unfounded and racist line of thinking is just that. You have NO DATA to show that ONE SINGLE BLM advocate looted stores."
I'm saying that the hours of video evidence from local news coverage, gives an entirely different picture. The fact that you have to suggest that watching hours and hours of news coverage of young black (mostly) men walking out of multiple stores carrying booze and TV's, makes the claim "racist" indicates that you aren't being respectful, and that you believe that pointing out reality is "racist". What's hilarious, is that we watched multiple nights of (primarily) black people rioting/burning/looting/harming innocents, then we watched days of (primarily) white people cleaning up the damage and distributing the things necessary for the innocent victims to live. This isn't some sort of "racist" bullshit, it's the reality that I saw with my own two eyes, and participated in.
"I'm saying what is rational and observable and most likely is that the looters were by and large (or completely) opportunists, not concerned about the cause. Until you have a SINGLE SHRED of data to show otherwise, I'm calling BS on this line of reasoning, as are the BLM supporters and allies that I know and have read."
Excellent! You make a claim (without providing evidence), then demand that I prove a claim after I've pointed you to the primary source material that would allow you to see what we saw. The fact that you choose not to look for the evidence, nor provide any objective proof of your subjective hunch, says all I need to hear.
"Listen to black people, don't demonize them."
As I've pointed out repeatedly, I do listen to black people. Of course, I have not ever "demonized" black people as a group, in any way shape of from. Pointing out the reality that there were specific black people engaged in specific acts of violence/destruction/harm to innocent people, isn't "racist" or "demonizing", it's simply relating what happened.
If BLM was so against the rioting/looting/destruction/harm to innocent people, how much of the billions of dollars that they've raised has gone directly to the victims f the riots carried out under their "banners"?
You do realize that John Earl Sullivan has been charged with various crimes related to his participation in the storming of the capitol building, don't you?
The funny things is that you've decided that focusing on this "Official BLM members" notion as an excuse to separate the destruction from BLM, ignores that fact that the riots/destruction/occupation/etc were all engaged in by leftist groups. Who cares if it was specifically BLM, when it was all (except the literally peaceful protests in MI, and the tiny group of idiots who allegedly conspired against the MI governor) leftist groups. Billions of dollars of destruction, multiple deaths, all from leftists.
“of the 633 incidents coded [by the ACLED authors] as riots, 88 percent are recorded as involving Black Lives Matter activists. Data for 51 incidents lack information about the perpetrators’ identities. BLM activists were involved in 95 percent of the riots for which there is information about the perpetrators’ affiliation.”
From a report by the ACLED.
The problem with this 93% of the protests were "peaceful" narrative is that 7% of over 10,000 protests is (as we see above) a large number.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/16/study-up-to-95-percent-of-2020-u-s-riots-are-linked-to-black-lives-matter/
So, by all means if you want to dispute the data complied by the ACLED (the report cited is clearly trying to advance a pro BLM narrative), go right ahead. But when a pro BLM group provides data that suggest that hundreds of riots were involving BLM, it seems like you've got your work cut out for you. I suspect that the effort will prove to be too much and you'll simply repeat the "93% peaceful" narrative, which simply ignores the billions of dollars in damage and the measurable harm done by the 7% that weren't.
"If you are saying that BLM advocated or is responsible for people stealing booze and TVs, then you are full of shit."
"I'm trying to be respectful, but this unfounded and racist line of thinking is just that. You have NO DATA to show that ONE SINGLE BLM advocate looted stores."
https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/
“I don’t care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macy’s or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats,” Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. “That makes sure that person has clothes.”
“That is reparations,” Atkins added. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”
Art,
While it might be technically correct to say that BLM "advocated" for the riots, it's not incorrect to say that they were part of the problem not part of the solution. I'd argue that the Marxist language that is part and parcel of BLM and it's talk of revolution, could reasonably be construed to have aided and abetted those who wanted to riot. Or that BLM's protests incubated, spawned, and protected those who wanted to riot.
What's disingenuous about the "BLM advocated" narrative is that one of the hallmarks of BLM is that they are loosely organized, and disconnected enough because that "structure" gives them exactly this sort of deniability. Had they wanted to stop the riots, or facilitate the apprehension of the rioters, they could easily have made that happen. Instead they provided the large sea for the rioters to swim in.
Because we all know that the best way to stick it to the "oppressors" is to steal a case of Colt 45, and a couple of bottles of Courvoisier from Chicago/Lake Liqueur store, and a 54" 4K HDTV from Target. That's how you battle "oppression". Social justice warriors need to garb a few drinks and chill in front of the TV to rest up for the struggle every once and a while.
Post a Comment