- This topic has 70 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
WHERE IS THE COMMITEE FOR ALL THE DAMAGE THE black lives matter MOVEMENT DID IN SUMMER OF 2020??????????????
SO RADICAL WHERE ARE WE ? (IN AMERICA)????????????????
See the committee for misuse of capitol letters.
It wasn’t done to congresspersons so it is ok
My favorite story regarding mrdia distortion:
The CNN reporter describing the ” mostly peacefull ” demonstrations while over his shoulder you could clearly see the huge flames destroying businesses and homes.
As the saying goes, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
BLM burned down buildings somewhere else in the country, but Trump’s “friends” attacked the Capitol itself, while Congress was in session, and deliberately interfered with a session of Congress.
The two are connected, since the Jan. 6 rioters saw the BLM rioters “get away with it” and thought they had a license to riot (which would have happened if they stormed a federal building in a far-away “red” city, and the Capitol Police apparently thought the lesson from BLM was not to fight rioters.
“The two are connected, since the Jan. 6 rioters saw the BLM rioters “get away with it” and thought they had a license to riot ”
I disagree. I don’t think seeing all those criminals destroy property, civilization and neighborhoods without consequence (and with kamala support)made them think it was okay to riot. I think it was what made them realize that we are in big trouble, that the government is not protecting us and that we are in danger with no recourse. The proverbial last straw. A true demonstration that your world is no longer safe.
Just to be factual, (it’s the new satire.) rioters from both groups are in jail without the work of any committee.
n0mesorah:
“See the committee for misuse of capitol letters.”“Capitol” letters – hahahahaha!
See the committee for “pun”-ishable offenses.Thought experiment: what would have happened if BLM and Antifa rioters had attacked the Capitol in similar fashion?
Dear Aseh,
Thanks for getting it!
BLM would be driven off harshly if not killed. Antifa are not really rioters. They would only attack if they had a clear blueprint of getting that they want with a solid escape plan.
BLM would be driven off harshly if not killed. Antifa are not really rioters. They would only attack if they had a clear blueprint of getting that they want with a solid escape plan.
One group was led or at least inspired by the President to overthrow our government and democratic process. These same people ironically root for “law and order.” And distrust government control so much that they want to disregard votes of the people and subjugate their brains to their leader. Another difference is that Trump tweeted his love to Jan 6 rioters, whereas he warned BLM matters that “once the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Thought experiment: what would have happened if BLM and Antifa rioters had attacked the Capitol in similar fashion?
It would have been called a “peaceful protest.”
The instigators of the riots should be in jail. But it’s hard to prove who instigated them and it definitely wasn’t someone as powerful as a sitting president. However, the police for the most part dealt harshly with the rioters, there were thousands of arrests and several even died from tear gas and rubber bullets.
Dear Er,
Welcome! I’m the self appointed chair of this committee.
This is a Trump-free exercise. Were talking about just the riot/attack.
Dear Dovid,
More like it would have been explained away as years of ignoring racial disparities and doing nothing to pass the civil rights bills in the sixties.
Dear Yserbius,
Those shots were started because angry crowds gathered. Not incited. Anarchists and looters took advantage. But that was nothing compared to the national commentators. They walked away from the whole thing with a real killing.
To nOmesorah: I agree with your comment about the proper use of upper case and lower case letters, but you should check out the difference between capitol (a building) and capital (every capital that is not a building, e.g., upper case letters, crime, investment funds, idea).
And I think the real truth is that “The Real Truth” was trying to deliver an insult to BLM.
Dear Hulu,
The committee has looked into the difference. It does not check out. Further investigations are being checked out.
With all due deference to The Real Truth, the committee has recommended him for racial reeducation.
Very few of those riots involved Federal crimes as the attack on the Capitol was so policing and charges were up to the local authorities. January 6th was clearly an attempt to interfere with government proceedings, not exactly a riot. There is no reason Congress can not have separate hearings on the riots at another time.
“BLM RIOTS VS. JAN. 6 PROTEST”
first of all, It was not a ‘protest’ , it was an insurrection.
second, blm burned down mostly their own neighborhoods.
Jan 6 tried to overthrow our wonderful democratic government.
Huge difference between the two.
One we can, and do, recover from, Second, once new government installed, with trump as the Messiah in charge, no turning back – we wind up like venezuela and all other tyrannies.The main difference between the two (for liberals) boils down to the liberal belief of “the only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you are on” . (The actual difference of course is that terrorists target civilians whereas freedom fighters only target military and other government representatives of the occupying forces)
There is no justification for their ignoring riots where over twenty people were murdered and over twenty billion dollars of damage were done. Given the choice between the capital riots happening again or the BLM riots happening again I’ll take the capital riots any day.
The Democrats have thrown their “root cause” ideology out the window for the capital riots. The belief that riots perpetrators behavior is attributable to some kind of societal dysfunction that needs to be addressed did not even get a mention in all the media obsession with January 6.
The question of what drove so many people to get riled up by the idea of election fraud should be a major question for liberals. How can there be such a mass distrust of government and media that Trump is so easily able to peddle such claims is not a question the January 6 commission, in their ostensible efforts to prevent such things from happening in the future, will even consider.
The BLM rioters were handsomely rewarded with liberals sending hundreds or thousands of people to their deaths to die for “defund the police” and other liberal antipolice pro crime ideology. The capital rioters were treated in a way that will probably make them even more radical and hostile to the government
“second, blm burned down mostly their own neighborhoods.”
Well thats a lie. And not even a good one.@moishe, factuly incorrect, BLM rioters mostly looted and roited in busniess or upscale areas.
@Yakkov Doe, how about we deal the issues chronology, BLM came firstDear Moshe,
The attack on the Capitol can be vaguely compared to the riots looting of capital. Becoming Venezuela would also be a looting of capitalism.
Dear Common,
No need to delay. State prosecutes have already prosecuted criminals over the riots. And federal judges have already sentenced the insurrectionists.
Dear Smerel,
Good point about the media neglecting root social causes for the insurrection.
Who are the thousands of people sent to their deaths over defund the police? Covid? Ukraine?
How were the attackers treated differently than the rioters that entered the federal building in Portland?
Dear Syag,
Wouldn’t it be racist to say that those shopping malls were not owned by blacks?
Smerel wrote :”Given the choice between the capital riots happening again or the BLM riots happening again I’ll take the capital riots any day.”
I think you are actually doing the same thing that you (correctly) accuse the liberals of doing, by having a different standard depending on one’s political beliefs. Why do I say that? Because I think if BLM stormed the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration, you would agree that it was worse than other riots.
“Because I think if BLM stormed the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration, you would agree that it was worse than other riots.”
Not at all. And if you would think about it it should be very obvious how incorrect that is. The most insulting part of that is completely not understanding how damaging the riots were, including the backing from government people and the lack of ability to stop it. To the point that some cities are still suffering from the precedent they set. To brush that all aside as a “well you just don’t like blm” is not rational.
Why would it be racist? They either are or they aren’t
>>> Because I think if BLM stormed the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration, you would agree that it was worse than other riots.
Had I been given the choice of BLM storming the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration or the actual BLM riots where over twenty people were killed and over twenty billion dollars in damages were done and all sort of pro crime anti police law resulted
I absolutely would have preferred them storming the capitol in January 2017 to prevent Trump’s inauguration. A thousand times over@smerel Of the 20 people murdered, I believe 17 of them were rioters. One person was killed by a burglar taking advantage of the riots. And two people were killed in a gang battle in that Seattle neighborhood that the police abandoned to the rioters and gangs.
To be clear, I have no love for BLM or Antifa or any of the other thugs, and their actions should not be minimized. But it’s easy to look in retrospect and say that the storming of the capitol was no big deal because only a couple people got killed and the only damage was to public property, when actually we are very lucky that’s all it was. It could easily have been worse, but that outcome was avoided because the capitol police showed restraint against the rioters and got the lawmakers out before they were seriously threatened. History has shown that attacks on centers of government power usually result either in anarchy and violence (Rwanda for example) or in a government crackdown on freedom and consolidation or power (the burning of the Reichstag for example). So while we were lucky in January 2021, I think the potential negative consequences were even worse than those of the BLM riots.
Aseh – A) nobody is saying it isnt a big deal. Its horrible. And it has nothing to do with how many people died.
B) no, it wouldn’t have been a lot worse. We weren’t ‘just lucky. For all the cries of armed insurrection, there have not been reports of arms. The blm rioters were armed. And deliberately so.
I’m still scratching my head tho, are you really thinking that there are people who think that stuff?syag – “Well thats a lie. And not even a good one.’
You’re right, I can’t possibly compete with your Hero’s BIG LIES. The EX-president is a liar par-excellence with a following that boggles the mind.So you tell a lie, I tell you its an easily disproven lie, and your response is that Trump lies better. So I don’t get it, you’re saying thats the role model you are aspiring to be? And my hero happens to be my father who was incredibly honest. I don’t aspire to be Trump like you seem to.
Unless you are the same poster, you may want to contact bigbucher for a playmate, you seem to have a bit in common.
The 2 big differences:
1. With BLM there was no organized plot or conspiracy to take down the US government
BLM protests and riots mostly involved local, not federal property;
Combining these 2 factors you understand why no hearings on BLM. Both rioters were thugs. But an organized plot against the U.S. rightly deserves more immediate attention. BLM rioters, while acting out of crowd-mentality, had no motive to overthrow. And most of their protests did not involve federal property.
I was censured for throwing in Trump earlier, but seriously, if governmental officials met with or conspired with rioters, that’s big news. On the other hand, with BLM many gov officials failed to take action against rioting, but no one planned or supported it.Er- you are aware, I assume, that when you said (twice) that it wasn’t mostly federal property you seem to be forgetting or trying to slide by that that isn’t none. Damage to federal property, even when its not most, is still a federal offense. And in your downgrade you are overlooking the fact that some were set fire while people were in there, in one instance they actually blockaded fire fighters (or police, not sure which) inside the federal building and set it fire to kill them. And they, by the way, are federal employees, am I right?
“many gov officials failed to take action against rioting, but no one planned or supported it.” Um, this is not true. I’m pretty positive gov officials supported it. I heard them. And they encouraged it. I heard them. And they offered money for bail. So what exactly is your reason for letting this all get swept aside?
My reason could partly be ignorance. I am not aware of too many of the details that took place at federal buildings. Aside from that, according to the principles I laid out above, it’s a ‘totality of the circumstances’ analysis: A coordinated plot to carry out a coup is more serious than a bunch of hoodlums. We’ll always have hoodlums, the way to deal with it is through better law enforcement and there are fewer things to investigate. With a plot, particularly who was involved and assessing whether this can happen in the future, it’s more imperative to investigate right away for the stability of our country. It doesn’t mean we should go easy on BLM rioters. They should investigate the BLM actions if they think there was a coordinated plot beyond violently venting anger, or if there are security lapses that they could fix to prevent in the future.
Again, not aware of elected officials who supported anything more than peaceful protests, or if these people were talking out of both sides of their mouths. Based on totality of circumstances, even encouraging violent thuggery (??) is less serious than encouraging a violent (or non-violent) coup. In addition to being more serious, it’s a way more complex case, involving texts, phone and other records, and cooperation of governmental officials’ testimony.
Am I right?100% right. Those who claim a local riot is worse than trying to overthrow our government, not only are they wrong, but they are disillutional and dead-wrong. du herst, syag?
There is zero comparison between BLM riots and Jan 6th Protest.
Apples and Oranges. Es klep zich azoi vi abus tzu di vantComplaining about the BLM riots is a deflection and diversion to the JAN 6 Committee findings.
The committee is not setting down the law regarding the protesters at the protest. That is being handled by the justice department. More than 840 people have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, with charges ranging from obstruction of an official proceeding to assault. Only around a quarter of those arrested—185 individuals—have received criminal sentences, while the rest are waiting for their trials or haven’t yet reached plea agreements.
The committee is examining the communications between Trump, his administration, his lawyers and other Republican Political officials who were part of the plot to overturn the election.
It has received verbal testimony, videos, texts , emails etc …
It has subpoenaed hundreds of people. Most testified . The few that refused, some of them are being held in contempt and probably going to sit in jail.@er
1. The people who were purely engaged in peaceful protests weren’t arrested.
When people like kamala harris actively raised bail, it was for the people who were not peacefully protesting.2. As best as I can tell, there was no plot of a coup on Jan 6th. There were people who felt that there were still constitutional mechanisms which could reverse the vote and wanted to pressure Pence to do so (in addition to the many protesters who sinply wanted Congress to delay confirming until after investigating discrepancies.
They might have been wrong about the constitutional abilities to change anything, and they may have been wrong about the method of protesting.
But I haven’t heard any indication that the protesters, even had they gotten in to Congress, would have done anything other than force Congress to follow their mistaken approach to the confirmation. And this would then have gone to the supreme court who would have rejected it (assuming it really is unconstitutional).They were wrong and acted improperly, based on a (probably) false narrative they believed.
But they weren’t coming to overthrow the government but rather to support the constitution (according to their mistaken approach).
This hardly a coup.3. The BLM/Antifa riots were actually rejecting the government’s authority.
CHAZ was literally an autonomous zone set up as a rejection of the government’s authority. Federal buildings were attacked, federal statues (representing American history) were torn down,and law and order were rejected.
No one claimed the constitution allowed looting and destruction; they claimed they weren’t bound by the government since it was a corrupt system founded upon systemic racism and bigotry.
And this approach was not only not condemned, it was tolerated and even supported.
The senator who openly called for bailing out the violent priestess not only wasn’t censored, she was chosen as VP.CHAZ was tolerated for a long time (I think 6weeks?) Before the crime there became so bad the government had to close it down.
Portland mayor’s house was torched in and arson attack, and his response was to apologize and leave the city.
And most of all, the msm kept gaslighting us by claiming that it was “mostly peaceful”, even as 10s of millions of Americans were forced into their homes under curfew. The riots caused billions of dollars in damages as well as hundreds of casualties and dozens of deaths. By all accounts that I’ve seen, tho was the most destructive riot in USA history.
And when Biden was asked about Antifa in the the debates, he claimed it was just an idea and not an organization.
Seemingly he was unaware that already in 2015 the FBI had already arrested people, identified and infiltrated cells, and had evidence of a set methodology communication and coordination between cells.So the riots were not just some “hoodlums”.
There were multiple actors inciting active rebellion against the USA authority, on a scale never seen before in American history, with the support of members of government and the msm.This to me is a lot more worrisome than some protesters who had a mistaken approach to the elections and felt they needed to act to save the constitution.
er- not right. You claim not to know much but then make lots of statements anyway. Simultaneously pooh poohing the riots and saying 1/6 is being pooh poohed.
I have already clarified several mistakes, to the best of my own knowledge but in your new post you claim they were posting bail for the peaceful protesters, they weren’t.
You call it thuggery, as if a bunch of random hooligans showed up to a party. There was live footage of a big rental truck showing up with printed signs and banners, and piles of bricks left available on some street corners. Who funded those? Who rented and drove the truck? How did people know where to meet to get it? Many of the ‘thugs’ traveled from lots of different cities and states. Who arranged and paid for that? It’s not as “nothing” as you keep portraying it to be. If you really don’t know any of this, why keep bringing it in? Why compare them at all? Is it just to shout down the people who want answers? If not then what is the purpose?“That declaration of Donald Trump as the next president would have plunged America into what I believe would have been tantamount to a revolution within a constitutional crisis in America, which in my view, and I’m only one man, would have been the first constitutional crisis since the founding of the republic,” Luttig testified.
Syag, I did say, “They should investigate the BLM actions if they think there was a coordinated plot beyond violently venting anger, or if there are security lapses that they could fix to prevent in the future.” Even still, Jan 6 is a bigger deal.
Gefilte: “There were people who felt that there were still constitutional mechanisms which could reverse the vote and wanted to pressure Pence to do so.”
Today’s hearing made clear: White House counsel said this move is illegal, and conveyed to Trump. Trump’s personal lawyer even requested a PARDON! Whether the VP has power to not certify isn’t a matter of legal interpretation. Read the Constitution. And see the Electoral Count Act saying VP has no ability to change the outcome.
“They were wrong and acted improperly, based on a (probably) false narrative they believed.”
Today’s hearing convincingly establishes that Trump was told it was false. And he told his followers to believe it anyway.
“And this would then have gone to the supreme court who would have rejected it.”
Who knows what Trump would have done when losing in supreme court? He lost 60 other court cases then and it didn’t respect him. I underdtand (but seen no evidence yet) he was considering invoking martial law.
Seems I can’t stop talking about Trump here, but if any of you have been following the hearings, you’ll see that yes, this itself makes this more hearing-worthy than BLM. Glad to find some agreement with many of you (Syag), I think we can see by now how we all fall out on this comparison.@jackk could you clarify what is the meaning, and significance, of a constitutional crisis? I’m honestly not sure what to make of that term.
My assumption is that even if the Jan 6th protesters had gotten pence to send the electors back to the state’s (or have the house vote in President) the democrats would have just challenged it in the supreme court.
The supreme court would either have rejected it as unconstitutional (Which it seems pretty likely m); or, they would have ruled that it was valid (highly unlikely).
Either way this would have been following the constitution.
And this would not exempt the rioters and protesters from criminal charges if they violated the law.So what exactly is the crisis?
To the best of my understanding, it would be the use of an extremely novel approach to reading the constitution, one which goes against all precedent.I’m not trying to belittle the above scenario; it obviously would have major ramifications.
But it still falls back on 1 of 2 possibilities. If the court rules that was valid- a legit use of a legal loophole- then while the dems would be upset, and they would push to amend the constitution to prevent this from happening again, the result would be that the president would have been elected according to the constitution.If the more likely scenario played out, and the supreme court rejected the shtick as unconstitutional and ordered pence to confirm Biden, what would have happened then?
I don’t think anybody would have expected there to be an armed coup to overthrow the government. Even if people had brought weapons, they were to get Congress to not confirm Biden, not to stage a coup. Especially since their whole point was to uphold the government (in their warped perception).
Especially since by the time a theoretical court ruling would have been issued, national guard etc would have been mobilized.
So I really don’t see any potential for a coup.
At worst it would have been a “constitutional crisis” which just sounds like people getting upset over taking advantage of a legal loophole and violating the spirit of the constitution.Do you feel this is an accurate analysis? Did I miss something? Is there another meaning to “constitutional crisis ” the I’m unaware of?
Not real sure where we found common ground. I was with you big time in your first post and possibly your second but when you started reporting on the hearing as if you are being presented with well rounded evidence and information (which even anti trump reporters agree is not so), and as if evidence has been verified in a court of law instead of a one sided report, and you aren’t willing to process what actually happened with the blm destruction, and now you imply someone is going to be looking into any of those things??? You lost me waaay long ago.I
1. Don’t get too wrapped up with the term “constitutional crisis.” Per my last post, it meant to say that Trump already lost 60 court cases but he did not respect the rule of law. So who knows what he would have done if he lost in supreme court?
2. A lawyer may not bring a frivolous case that has 0% chance of winning. That is why Guiliani is in trouble with the bar. Per my last post, there is nothing novel to argue. White house staff testified as such and even said Trump is wading into criminal territory.
3. Syag – common ground is I agreed with you they should investigate BLM at capitol if they really thought there was something important to learn from the investigation.
4. I seem to have fallen for an old trick. The exercise in comparing Jan 6 to BLM is just to create a distraction. Few people here seemed to have watched the hearing testimony. Of course it’s not a trial and not 100% rebuttable, but it’s unquestionably damning. In the face of ugly evidence why not point across the aisle and cry fire?
Watch the hearing, perhaps at 1.5x speed. But I challenge you all to do it. I won’t tell your friends you saw it!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.