MAGAs Trying to Storm the Capitol

[ShocksMyBrain 9,379]

Also, they’re trying to assemble another “rally” in the days leading up to inauguration. At this point, there should be no public inauguration. 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,379]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

I was lucky to catch his Facebook before he balleeted it lol. So much Tucker Carlson. 

I saw it linked on my FB with his name, but didn’t bother going to check it out. 

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, ShocksMyBrain said:

Also, they’re trying to assemble another “rally” in the days leading up to inauguration. At this point, there should be no public inauguration. 

With the virus, I wouldn't want a big spectacle anyway.

[homersapien 11,460]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

Don't bother. He's fashioning an equivalent boogie man to try and soften the blow of armed people storming the capitol with makeshift handcuffs, guns and a list of names they planned to 86 at the discretion of our current idiot in chief. 

Oh, and don't forget the pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. 

Apparently, people rioting as the result of an unjustified police killing are "Democrat" extremists by definition.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

11 hours ago, CleCoTiger said:

Zinn's history was not "revisionist." His "A People's History of the United States" was history from the viewpoint of those on the other side of our "victories." Take the Trail of Tears for example...

Since when is a viewpoint history?  History is always written by the victors, so a viewpoint is revising history.  You can write about your viewpoints, but to teach it is disingenuous and Zinn’s viewpoint is being taught. 

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

9 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Since when is a viewpoint history?  History is always written by the victors...

Exactly Zinn's point. Hence the need to inform people of what it looked like from the other side.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

12 hours ago, CleCoTiger said:

Exactly Zinn's point. Hence the need to inform people of what it looked like from the other side.

How do feel about the perspective of the South concerning the Civil War?  Do you accept that version from the other side?  Which version should be taught in our school?

[homersapien 11,460]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do feel about the perspective of the South concerning the Civil War?  Do you accept that version from the other side?  Which version should be taught in our school?

Certainly not the "Progressive School", 1910- 1940,  (see also "Nashville Fugitives who gathered at Vanderbilt University) of historians which promulgated the "Lost Cause" versions, which is what I was taught.

Obviously more modern historians should be used.  There pretty much thoroughly debunked revisionist history - often with original texts.

A great example would be "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew, which dispels the myth of slavery as anything less than the motivating cause of the war.

Another good one is "Bitterly Divided" by David Williams which is good exploration of the internal politics of the southern states. It dispels the myth of a unified south. (Williams got his PhD from Auburn, btw)

And there are many others such as "This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James McPherson, and so on.

Bottom line, the factual "version" of history needs to be taught in our schools.

We need to move this to a new thread if you really want to get into it.

[I_M4_AU 8,012]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Certainly not the "Progressive School", 1910- 1940,  (see also "Nashville Fugitives who gathered at Vanderbilt University) of historians which promulgated the "Lost Cause" versions, which is what I was taught.

Obviously more modern historians should be used.  There pretty much thoroughly debunked revisionist history - often with original texts.

A great example would be "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew, which dispels the myth of slavery as anything less than the motivating cause of the war.

Another good one is "Bitterly Divided" by David Williams which is good exploration of the internal politics of the southern states. It dispels the myth of a unified south. (Williams got his PhD from Auburn, btw)

And there are many others such as "This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James McPherson, and so on.

We need to move this to a new thread if you really want to get into it.

The point was not to get into anything just pointing out that if you believe in Zinn’s viewpoint of history you can’t discount any other viewpoint of history.  The statement should not be any deeper then that.

 

[homersapien 11,460]

35 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The point was not to get into anything just pointing out that if you believe in Zinn’s viewpoint of history you can’t discount any other viewpoint of history.  The statement should not be any deeper then that.

 

Of course you can.  All it takes is a subsequent historian who corrects it in a reliable, convincing way.  History is not mere opinion.  It is a recounting of fact.

The "Progressive School" is a prime example -  their work is not factual.  It's pure bunk which has been thoroughly debunked.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Everyone should watch this.  14 minutes of raw video.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJxPQcXgq6H/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&fbclid=IwAR1PvTrffTDxus471Y5o7AEq34-z2WvAJaV4aYxzWwCzt-LM6UDXr4e4Ohg

[homersapien 11,460]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Everyone should watch this.  14 minutes of raw video.

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CJxPQcXgq6H/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&fbclid=IwAR1PvTrffTDxus471Y5o7AEq34-z2WvAJaV4aYxzWwCzt-LM6UDXr4e4Ohg

It's amazing more LOEs weren't killed.  What was needed there was a healthy dose of buckshot at the point of attack.  

These people are obviously determined to fall back on armed resurrection ("lets go get our guns!").

I say give 'em one.  

[AUDub 11,184]

Welp the 5-0 got zip tie guy.

 

[caleb1633 1,418]

On 1/8/2021 at 9:04 PM, homersapien said:

Sure, here's some examples where Party leaders have either encouraged, or been passive to violence by the radical left.

 

Andrew Cuomo: "Who says protests are supposed to be peaceful and polite?" https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/04/cnns_chris_cuomo_who_says_protests_are_supposed.html

I agree with you here - that's one.

Thank you! And to answer his question: It literally says it right in the First Amendment.

Kamala Harris on June 1, 2020: "If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota." As Minneapolis was up in flames and people were being arrested for vandalism and other acts of violence.

I have no problem with providing bail for people who can't afford it.  Being arresting does not mean you are necessarily guilty - especially if you are black.

That's a double-edged sword. While I hate seeing innocent people arrested, this also provides incentive to those who do intentionally commit violent activity. Combine that with the guaranteed legal services that have been provided by the National Lawyer's Guild and the ACLU, and rioters can wreck entire cities with impunity. Before she posted this, we had just witnessed rioters in Minneapolis burn down a police station, loot hundreds of businesses, and burn entire neighborhoods to the ground. Instead of flat-out denouncing the destruction, she advertises a GoFundMe. We may not agree on how we see this, but I find it to be a poor use of her platform as a prominent politician.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley: On August 22, 2020 called for "unrest in the streets."

Well what exactly did she mean by "unrest"?   Many would describe massive public protest as "unrest".

Leaving the word "unrest" up for interpretation after 4 months of "unrest" equating to destruction of property and at least two dozen deaths across the country is probably not a smart idea. It's a floating point variable that people can interpret as they please. Either she knew what she was doing or she was being irresponsible. Trump never specifically told his minions to raid the Capitol, but when you raise the temperature enough with outlandish, unproven claims, and have your lawyer demanding a "Trial By Combat", you can't be surprised when those on the fringes react with violence.

Joe Biden: Denies that Antifa is anything more than an idea, when they in fact held near-nightly riots for over 100 days in Portland.

SOMEONE promoted riots in Portland for a long time. 

But I don't think Biden was challenging that fact.  He may have been challenging the myth of a highly organized (liberal) terrorist group as the primary reason for riots that started from legitimate protests.  It doesn't take more than a handfull of anarchists or opportunistic criminals to start a riot given the right atmosphere which is exactly what historically happens when inflammatory events happen.

On July 27, the Washington Times reports: "Rep. Jerrold Nadler declared Sunday it’s a “myth” that Antifa provocateurs are behind the ongoing violent protests in Portland, Oregon."

See above.

Fair points and I generally agree, though downplaying the damage that has been done by disaggregated groups that fall under the ideological umbrella of "Antifa" is a poor approach. Imagine if when Trump was asked about denouncing white supremacy he said, "Oh white supremacy is just an idea!" just because there's no organized terrorist group called "The White Supremacists" (though there probably is one out there in the 4Chans of the world).

Mayor Ted Wheeler in Portland has stood by, mostly idly, while Rioters run amok.

Bad on him. He'll probably be run out of office.  But I wouldn't say he is representative of Democratic philosophical policy in general. 

Democrats value law and order as much as anyone.  They don't repeatedly claim that a given election was fraudulent for months after the legal certification.  Nor do they incite their followers to violently invade the capitol to reverse a given election (well excepting the election of 1860 )                                                                           

I never claimed it was a representation of the general sentiments of those in the Democratic Party. It is an example though, which is what you asked for. Let's also examine the effects and response of his appeasement:

 

• Masked extremists from both BLM and Antifa smashed their way into the Multnomah County Justice Center on May 29. The building houses the Sheriff’s Office, a police station and jail. Rioters ransacked the ground floor, hoping to break into the jail to free prisoners. When that failed, they started fires; city and county staff fled.
• For the next four months, BLM-Antifa rioted every night in Portland, setting fire to streets and buildings and assaulting responding officers with concrete and mortar explosives. In July, they tried to storm into a federal courthouse downtown. Night after night, hundreds and then thousands of rioters brought in electric tools, rope and explosives to breach the barrier erected to protect the building.
• More than 277 injuries of officers were reported by the Department of Homeland Security in Portland alone. Hundreds of injuries were reported by other police departments in different cities.
• Local politicians at the time condemned law enforcement and lionized the criminals. Portland city councilwoman Jo Ann Hardesty spread a conspiracy theory that police were engaging in false-flag arson attacks to frame left-wing protesters. Mayor Ted Wheeler told President Trump in a news conference to take his “troops” and leave. Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden called the officers an “occupying army.” Oregon Gov. Kate Brown described them as “secret police abducting people in unmarked vehicles.” So it wasn't just Wheeler who was allowing the extremists free reign.
• Even after all his appeasement, Antifa activists hate him even more. He got punched in the face out at a restaurant just the other night.

June 25, 2018: Rep. Maxine Waters says, regarding members of Trump's cabinet, "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

OK you got me there also.  That approaches Trump's implying there might be a "Second amendment" solution to the Election of Hillary Clinton.

Lucky Maxine doesn't have millions of Democratic acolytes, huh?

Maxine Waters has 1.6M followers on Twitter and millions of people with similar sentiments likely heard this. Nonetheless, the argument wasn't in terms of scope, but of examples where the incitement has occurred. And yes, that's just one of many dumb things Trump has said that was divisive. Regardless of some of his policies that I tended to think carried some value, I could never get past this quality or many others that he possessed. Such behavior from political officials is always unacceptable, regardless of what letter is put in parentheses in front of their name.

In fairness, there have been plenty of instances, particularly by President-elect Biden, where Party leaders have condemned the violence, but there are definitely plenty of those who have either fanned the fire or continued to let it burn.

You mean Democrats?  What is the "fire" they are fanning?

The fire that is being fanned is the normalization of political violence and polarization. Whether it is a passive or active approach, it enables rioting, vandalism, and violence towards the "other side" and only furthers the political divide in this country, which only harms individuals and communities who are innocent bystanders to whatever is in protest. I'm all for peaceful protests. Protest whatever it is, no matter how much I agree with it or not, because the right to peacefully assemble is bigger than why someone is peacefully assembling in that specific instance.

Sorry for the late response. I was in Atlanta visiting family, plus with you and a few others, I feel I should make sure what I post is well thought out and not just a half-assed stream of consciousness or simplistic quips that are void of substance. I've provided my thoughts to your responses. A lot of this comes down to the bottom line of my political ideals, which is "Support policies and objectives; not parties or politicians." For me, this isn't about picking a side and sticking with it against my better judgment. Good that is done should be praised, and bad that is done should be rebuked, regardless of who does it or how egregious it is. If our ideologies are shaped out of our identities as Republicans or Democrats, left or right, conservatives or progressives, etc; rather than our identity as Americans, then we've already lost. And it won't just be the opposition that is hurt by it. We will all face consequences for the hatred and hypocrisy. I would go further into pointing out the failures of the Republican Party, but those are well addressed on this forum. It may make me seem like I favor one "side" or the other, but that simply isn't the case. I think finding a suitable future together as Americans is more important than which side is right or wrong. Both need to be willing to admit fault, otherwise, we'll just continue our descent.

As I've said, one reason I take time to discuss these things with you is because you're actually one of the few who will say, "Fair point. That was jacked up." Lol. Thanks for the responses. I am enjoying having a difficult conversation that doesn't resort to baseless name calling and logical fallacies.

[caleb1633 1,418]

On 1/9/2021 at 10:40 AM, homersapien said:

Apparently, people rioting as the result of an unjustified police killing are "Democrat" extremists by definition.

 

The George Floyd incident was one of the most horrific examples of police misconduct I've ever witnessed. It was a miscarriage of justice. I think the initial response was phenomenal and I was proud of the way the country came together. At some point, the tide shifted to those on the fringe hijacking what was a unifying movement and setting back any progress that could have occurred. While I understand the outrage, you have to examine whether your actions are actually beneficial to your cause. Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan wrote a book called "Why Civil Resistance Works", which examines violent and non-violent forms of civil resistance across the world from 1900 to 2006. They found that peaceful movements were more than two times as effective as their violent counterparts. You have to judge public actions by the results, not the intentions. For instance, there is reason to believe that the urban riots of 1968 led to the election of Richard Nixon, who formed his campaign on the basis of "Law and Order." I also truly believe that the civil unrest in cities throughout the country last year is one of the biggest reasons why the 2020 election was as close as it was.

[McLoofus 35,182]

45 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

I also truly believe that the civil unrest in cities throughout the country last year is one of the biggest reasons why the 2020 election was as close as it was.

You're absolutely right.

The problem is, though, why is it always incumbent upon the oppressed not to piss off the oppressors? Why aren't those who believed that law and order bull**** responsible for their own poor judgment? 

[caleb1633 1,418]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're absolutely right.

The problem is, though, why is it always incumbent upon the oppressed not to piss off the oppressors? Why aren't those who believed that law and order bull**** responsible for their own poor judgment? 

That's a complicated question and I don't have the answer to that. I don't think there's any simple or easy answer to the problems we face in our society. Most of us have failed to even accurately define what those problems are, which is the most important thing to do. Einstein once said something to the extent of, "If I have one hour to solve a problem, I'll spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem, and 5 minutes thinking of a solution." I also think framing the problem is the most difficult thing to do. If you push the break pedal on your car and it doesn't stop, you can quickly figure out why. When something is messed up in something as complex as our society, it's incredibly difficult to determine causality, and it's usually a lot more than one contributing factor. We have a lot of people who will quickly say, "Well OBVIOUSLY it's x, y, or Z." No, it's not that simple. There's too many simplistic solutions to complex problems being thrown around now, and I think it's just going to exacerbate the issues.

[McLoofus 35,182]

5 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

That's a complicated question and I don't have the answer to that.

Okay. But keep in mind that we keep hearing how Dems shouldn't do this or BLM protesters should have done that to keep the peace, but we don't seem to be hearing much about what folks on the other side should or shouldn't be doing towards that same end. Keep that in mind when dispensing your suggestions. 

[caleb1633 1,418]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Okay. But keep in mind that we keep hearing how Dems shouldn't do this or BLM protesters should have done that to keep the peace, but we don't seem to be hearing much about what folks on the other side should or shouldn't be doing towards that same end. Keep that in mind when dispensing your suggestions. 

Well, OBVIOUSLY (lol). Where to even begin on that...? Ummm, well—and this one is an obvious statement—storming the Capitol building was probably the dumbest thing they could've done to further their goals. Another thing I've typically seen is the only side that recommends any solutions to anything is the left, and the right just spends all their time criticizing those proposals. Perhaps come up with something of value on your own instead of just criticism? (That's me speaking to the right). So, I don't blame anyone on the left for being pissed off at the right. Then the right wonders why there's outrage... Well, how about not completely ignoring half the population? No problems are being solved with the way we're doing things, yet we keep doing it ("we" meaning "America"). It's the very definition of insanity.

[homersapien 11,460]

1 hour ago, caleb1633 said:

The George Floyd incident was one of the most horrific examples of police misconduct I've ever witnessed. It was a miscarriage of justice. I think the initial response was phenomenal and I was proud of the way the country came together. At some point, the tide shifted to those on the fringe hijacking what was a unifying movement and setting back any progress that could have occurred. While I understand the outrage, you have to examine whether your actions are actually beneficial to your cause. Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan wrote a book called "Why Civil Resistance Works", which examines violent and non-violent forms of civil resistance across the world from 1900 to 2006. They found that peaceful movements were more than two times as effective as their violent counterparts. You have to judge public actions by the results, not the intentions. For instance, there is reason to believe that the urban riots of 1968 led to the election of Richard Nixon, who formed his campaign on the basis of "Law and Order." I also truly believe that the civil unrest in cities throughout the country last year is one of the biggest reasons why the 2020 election was as close as it was.

I agree completely.  When the rioting broke out, it infuriated me.  And to be honest, it wasn't just because some stores were looted or burned - which is terrible enough for the owners,  but mainly because it was so counterproductive to the whole message of what the protests was about. 

It essentially sabotaged that purpose and hijacked the justifiable grievance that sparked the protests in the first place.  Plus, it handed the initiative right back to the people who are insensitive or indifferent to the cause of racial injustice and allowed them to portray the entire BLM movement as a bunch of lawless rioters. (We can see this on almost daily basis on this site, with people characterizing the BLM as a bunch of brutal thugs which are just as bad as MAGA's trashing the capitol.)

The relatively few people - compared to the many that were rightfully peacefully protesting - who did it were either common criminals taking advantage of an opportunity to loot and steal or people who became so enraged and frustrated by the Floyd video they became anarchists and just wanted to destroy the system.  But I can at least  understand their rage given the history of disparity of how the police treat black people. 

(Ironically this "enraged" class of rioters is no different than the MAGA rioters who invaded the capitol, only the latter were enraged over propaganda and lies emanating from Trump the election was "stolen". I have much less empathy for their grievance since they are really just promoting fascism and white supremacy based on lies and probaganda..)

Regardless, both were wrong - and counterproductive to their own cause - even if there is little equivalence.  There is a big difference between smashing windows of shops in Portland and smashing windows in our capitol building, interrupting our democratic process and threatening our representatives trying to do their job.  A big difference.

 

 

[homersapien 11,460]

54 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You're absolutely right.

The problem is, though, why is it always incumbent upon the oppressed not to piss off the oppressors? Why aren't those who believed that law and order bull**** responsible for their own poor judgment? 

Yeah, it's as if "law and order" applies only to civilians and not the people responsible for enforcing "law and order".

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Well, OBVIOUSLY (lol). Where to even begin on that...? Ummm, well—and this one is an obvious statement—storming the Capitol building was probably the dumbest thing they could've done to further their goals. Another thing I've typically seen is the only side that recommends any solutions to anything is the left, and the right just spends all their time criticizing those proposals. Perhaps come up with something of value on your own instead of just criticism? (That's me speaking to the right). So, I don't blame anyone on the left for being pissed off at the right. Then the right wonders why there's outrage... Well, how about not completely ignoring half the population? No problems are being solved with the way we're doing things, yet we keep doing it ("we" meaning "America"). It's the very definition of insanity.

You see where I'm coming from and that's all I can ask. Appreciate this response. 

[caleb1633 1,418]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

You see where I'm coming from and that's all I can ask. Appreciate this response. 

No worries! Thank you for understanding mine as well.

[AUDub 11,184]

 

good read

[AUDub 11,184]