Pencemegeddon

[Aris Katsaris]

Is there a single Trump voter here who'll show some moral integrity?

Of course not. If you had moral integrity, you'd not have voted for Trump.

Every Trumpist is a fascist.

[Aris Katsaris]

Though I'm against this latest riot just as I was against the BLM riots, was shooting that unarmed female 14 year Air Force veteran justified?

Her name was Ashli Babbitt, not "14 year Air Force Veteran".

And perhaps it wasn't justified (I don't have the full picture of the incident yet, how far were the people who needed protection from the rioteers?), but despite your everything-is-equal-pretense, there are different levels of "unjustifiability".

I'm thinking that the unjustifiability of killing someone who was breaking through a barricade at the head of a possible lynch mob and an officer had only a gun to stop the lynch mob from breaking through... is perhaps a tad different level of unjustifiability than the unjustiability of killing someone who had surrendered peacefully and was lying on the ground begging to be let breathe, as George Floyd was.

I'll remind you that Miriam Carey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_Capitol_shooting), (dental hygienist, since you're so interested in people's professions) was fired at 18 times, while also unnarmed, actually posing much less danger than Ashli Babbitt -- and no riots occurred over it that I know of, nor were any charges fired against any officers.

That was also unjustified, btw, and an example of excessive police force. But, see, that case was probably also even more unjustified than Ashli Babbitt's death. Since you care so much about comparisons with past incidents.

[Aris Katsaris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxmnJA0TBn8

Let me remind you Trump has claimed that he immediately called for the National Guard to be sent in.

Trump lied, again.

Will any of the Trumpists here actually be able to agree that TRUMP LIED in this case?

Come now. Say it: "Trump lied."

Partially redeem yourself by merely admitting this truth, and being able to utter such a plain thing: "Trump lied".

[yossarian22c]

How come now all of a sudden property damage and violence are a big deal when for months the media and the Democrats covered up the violent and destructive BLM riots? When it was the property and businesses of average citizens being destroyed and burned to ash all we got from the left were excuses, appeasement, and even encouragement toward the rioters. But now we see how important security is, at least when it's the political elites feeling the heat.

Where are the calls for the resignations and forced removals from office for the politicians who fueled the BLM riots?

Yeah, I know... this is different. Yeah, it's always different. That's what makes the standards double.

This wasn't just property damage. The building was occupied. A police officer was killed. How many congress persons would have been injured if they hadn't fled to safe rooms?

Point me to the Democrat who held a rally, fired up a crowd with false claims, then pointed them in the direction of a building and then had the crowd riot.

I already know people will make excuses for those riots and not these and say but... but... but... they're totally different. The difference with me is I won't make any excuses for any of the violence, any of the victims both dead and injured, or any of the rioters. Bad is bad, mkay?

So we're clear this is bad? Are there levels of bad? Or is jay walking and murder equivalent in your book?

The worst of the BLM protests included some arson (really bad), fire is dangerous, potential for people to die. I don't know of any of the protests that invaded a state capital building killing police along the way.

[yossarian22c]

The exact same argument can be made, and is made, with even more validity that the Democrats have been undermining our democratic system ever since the last election with their Trumped up fake charges of Russian collusion. We've had four years of undermining the legitimacy of the last election and now we're going to have four more years of the exact same thing. The entirety of the Russian collusion hoax including a kangaroo clown court impeachment was an attempted coup, and the BLM riots including incitement of them by Democratic leadership were an integral part of that attempted coup. So what about that?

More false equivalence BS.

Facts about Russia:
1) Russian intelligence used social media to inflame divisions in the USA and was pro Trump.
2) The Trump campaign shared polling data with Russians.
3) Trump's son and campaign manager met with people claiming to represent the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Facts about the impeachment:
1) It had nothing to do with the Russia investigation other than Trump asking for dirt on Biden.
2) Impeachment is the legal process for removing a president from office. Before you get to high on your kangaroo court moniker note that even Republican senators said Trump's call was inappropriate, but people like Lamar Alexander didn't think it was an impeachable offense.

Facts about BLM:
1) This was sparked by people watching a video of a police officer, with 3 other police officers standing by, with a crowd of people watching, being video taped, putting a knee on the neck of a man who was begging to breath.
2) It is fueled by how often police pull guns on black people where they wouldn't for white people (routine traffic stops).
3) This had jack s*** to do with any Russia or Ukrainian investigations.

Cherry I expected more from you. The president fired up a crowd, pointed them at the capital, and then watched them become a mob and attack the seat of power of the USA. Don't make yourself feel better about your man because democrats did something you can convince yourself was similar.

[yossarian22c]

How about all the conservatives here publicly state that Trump's call for Pence to be able to reject whatever electoral votes he didn't like as the most unamerican idea you've ever seen a President put forward. Who knew Gore could have just declared himself president by rejecting the electors from Florida? Talk about an idea to set up one party rule forever.

[Aris Katsaris]

How about all the conservatives here publicly state that Trump's call for Pence to be able to reject whatever electoral votes he didn't like as the most unamerican idea you've ever seen a President put forward.

They won't.

Prove me wrong, so-called "conservatives".

[msquared]

I am a conservative (but never a Trump supporter).  And I was appalled at Trump's request.  He is the most un American president we have ever had.  He is a traitor to the ideals of the country.

[Wayward Son]

And for anyone who still thinks Antifa/BLM was behind the rioting and taking over the Capitol, here's a report that indicates it was planned at least a couple of weeks ago.

“We came up with the idea to occupy just outside the CAPITOL on Jan 6th,” leaders of the Stop the Steal movement wrote on Dec. 23. They called their Wednesday demonstration the Wild Protest, a name taken from a tweet by Trump that encouraged his supporters to take their grievances to the streets of Washington. “Will be wild,” the president tweeted.

Unless most of Trump's supporters are Antifa/BLM, then this was a Trumpist "event." 

[Fenring]

You loved it when Russia undermined your democracy to support Trump -- you hated it when Democrats quite *properly* investigated potential collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians -- and you now love it again when Trump and Trumpists tried unsuccessfully to overthrow democracy.

Dude you need to quit drinking the delusion juice. Even your side tends to argue that Russia interefered in the election. Unless saying things you don't like is undermining to democracy, Russia did not and *could not* have done that. If you think they did then you don't know what the mechanism for that democracy is or how it works. Throwing this in amidst a series of invective is signalling more than anything that you are so rabid a partisan that as long as you say it with vehemence you are on the right track. Russia may have paid people on Twitter to speak up for Trump, and may have propped up anti-Hillary stuff so help Trump win, let's say, but the American people were free to make up their own mind. Democracy is undermined if the people have the truth hidden from them by their own government, or if their ability to vote is curtailed. Anything else is the marketplace of ideas.

[DonaldD]

That is, to be generous, simply naïve.  Why is it the marketplace of ideas when foreign countries use propaganda to foment unrest in the USA, or to sway public opinion, whereas if the US government does it, that is democracy being undermined?  Is it the same argument for extrajudicial killing of US citizens?  Kidnapping?

There are literally laws against foreign countries using propaganda to sway US elections.  This is part of the illegal the interference to which Aris was referring, and it is delusional not to try to protect an open society from this type of interference exercised by dictatorships like Russia and China.

[Fenring]

There are literally laws against foreign countries using propaganda to sway US elections.  This is part of the illegal the interference to which Aris was referring, and it is delusional not to try to protect an open society from this type of interference exercised by dictatorships like Russia and China.

There are literally laws saying that people of Russian descent are not allowed to post things on FB and Twitter, because you don't like their ideas? Are you sure you aren't living in Russia already...

As far as propaganda goes, this is why actual "news sources" are needed, to distinguish them from blogs, editorials, FB memes, and other stuff. There is nothing wrong with people voicing opinions online, legally speaking, and the only way to stop it is to be China. Propaganda that comes out of other nations is best combatted by having trustworthy media at home, not by crying when their propaganda is clashing with your propaganda.

[Aris Katsaris]

Russia may have paid people on Twitter to speak up for Trump, and may have propped up anti-Hillary stuff so help Trump win, let's say, but the American people were free to make up their own mind. Democracy is undermined if the people have the truth hidden from them by their own government, or if their ability to vote is curtailed. Anything else is the marketplace of ideas.

Democracy is undermined in many ways, and supporting a pathological liar who refuses to accept the results of a free and fair election and wants to violate the constitution to keep himself in power indefinitely is one of them.

Btw Russia has supported many far-leftist dictator-wannabes too, for the exact same reason. Chavez, Maduro, Morales, Russia doesn't particularly care if you're far-right or far-left, as long as you want to destroy democracy and love Russia, and Trump certainly qualifies for both.

They got a huge Return of Investment from Donald Trump.

[DonaldD]

There are literally laws saying that people of Russian descent are not allowed to post things on FB and Twitter, because you don't like their ideas? Are you sure you aren't living in Russia already...

There are literally laws against foreign countries interfering with US elections, yes.  Why you changed what I said to "people of Russian descent" is bizarre, if not actually a purposeful misrepresentation.  Although foreign nationals are also constrained from providing "anything of value" to a political candidate or party.

[Fenring]

There are literally laws saying that people of Russian descent are not allowed to post things on FB and Twitter, because you don't like their ideas? Are you sure you aren't living in Russia already...

There are literally laws against foreign countries interfering with US elections, yes.  Why you changed what I said to "people of Russian descent" is bizarre, if not actually a purposeful misrepresentation.  Although foreign nationals are also constrained from providing "anything of value" to a political candidate or party.

I changed it not to quote you but to render more accurate what we're talking about. The Russian government didn't assist or give anything to the Trump campaign directly. The argument made is that if you're in Russia you're obviously working for the Russian government, so that any Russian in Russia IS the Russian government. Ergo Russian bloggers are being equated to "foreign governments" in this case. And I further move it to "Russian descent" because I've even heard it argued that Russians in America are working for Russian, i.e. for the government. The argument seems to extend infinitely. And maybe there is some real truth to how far that network goes, I'm not even addressing that. But if you want to police such an indirect network then your only recourse is to...ban Russians from posting on the internet or something. So that is why I wrote it like that. But echo chamber anti-Trumpists repeatedly say stuff like "Russian colluded with Trump" and "Russia attacked our democracy" like it's just some fact on the table that's already been established, and implies further that (despite the investigation concluding the contrary) Russia helped Trump win. It wasn't so clear to this same faction that the Benghazi situation was damning to Obama and/or Hillary, since the result was on their side; but with Trump no result can remove the meme of Russian collusion and interference. Personally I think in both cases the investigations probably came up short of reality, but that's a side point. So that is why I changed your wording, to make it more accurate and reflective of what's actually being proposed - i.e. that any Russian at all blogging for Trump should have been stopped on the grounds that they were probably a Russian agent.

[Aris Katsaris]

So that is why I changed your wording, to make it more accurate and reflective of what's actually being proposed - i.e. that any Russian at all blogging for Trump should have been stopped on the grounds that they were probably a Russian agent.

Why don't you quit it with the passive voice and tell us WHO exactly proposed this.

Because if you're accusing ME of proposing this for example, I'll call you another *censored*ing Trumpist liar.

When I'm talking about Russia, I'm talking about the Russian government, and it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it tried to help Trump win. I have no idea how to measure what it's actual impact on the election was, but I know its actions and who they desired to win. You do too.

[DonaldD]

Though I'm against this latest riot just as I was against the BLM riots, was shooting that unarmed female 14 year Air Force veteran justified?

Just saw some video of Babbitt getting shot.  She was at the time trying to climb through a broken window beside the doors giving entry into the Speaker's Lounge, leading into the Hall of the House of Representatives, where Congress people were still sheltering.

On one side of the doors was this agent, no more than 8 feet from Babbitt, behind a barricade of what looks like chairs that seem have been used to impede the doors from opening.  On the other side, a group of people attempting to break through the barricade. The agent was holding his position with his weapon drawn, and was originally pointing it towards the doors themselves.  His aim changes to point to the window beside the doors, then you hear the shot being fired and Babbitt falling backwards out of the broken window.

Was shooting her justified?  You make the call.

[Fenring]

When I'm talking about Russia, I'm talking about the Russian government, and it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it tried to help Trump win.

Source please? I have literally never seen a single mention anywhere of any proof that the actual Russian government did anything direct. The best I heard was that the DNC hack was 'probably' done by a Russian hacker that 'probably' had ties to the government (because it can be inferred that they probably would have put them up to it). One of the chief repeated memes is the Russian meeting with Trump Jr., in which in fact no help was ever given even though supposedly it was offered, and this was also not the Russian government but some local operator who again it was inferred was probably connected to the government.

So I'll be most happy (I kid you not) if you can show me what I missed to back up your toss-in about Russian attacks on American democracy, which you linked to this current (bad) event.

[LetterRip]

 https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch-intelligence-hacked-video-cameras-in-office-of-russians-who-hacked-dnc/

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/?guccounter=1

[TheDrake]

When I'm talking about Russia, I'm talking about the Russian government, and it's been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that it tried to help Trump win.

Source please? I have literally never seen a single mention anywhere of any proof that the actual Russian government did anything direct. The best I heard was that the DNC hack was 'probably' done by a Russian hacker that 'probably' had ties to the government (because it can be inferred that they probably would have put them up to it). One of the chief repeated memes is the Russian meeting with Trump Jr., in which in fact no help was ever given even though supposedly it was offered, and this was also not the Russian government but some local operator who again it was inferred was probably connected to the government.

So I'll be most happy (I kid you not) if you can show me what I missed to back up your toss-in about Russian attacks on American democracy, which you linked to this current (bad) event.

Are you serious? Here's your source, the FBI?

Hacked state board of elections and election software companies. A "marketplace of ideas" doesn't include identity theft and false registration of a domain name.

[Aris Katsaris]

Source please? I have literally never seen a single mention anywhere of any proof that the actual Russian government did anything direct. The best I heard was that the DNC hack was 'probably' done by a Russian hacker that 'probably' had ties to the government (because it can be inferred that they probably would have put them up to it).

You're *this* uninformed, eh?

Let's start with Mueller report, page 36:

Beginning in March 2016, units of the Russian Federation 's Main Intelligence Directorate of the General Staff (GRU) hacked the computers and email accounts of organizations, e·mployees, and volunteers supporting the Clinton Campaign, including the email account of campaign chairman John Podesta. Starting in April 2016, the GRU hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The GRU targeted hundreds of email accounts used by Clinton Campaign employees, advisors, and volunteers. In total, the GRU stole hundreds of thousands of documents from the compromised email accounts and networks. The GRU later released stolen Clinton Campaign and DNC documents through online personas, "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0," and later through the organization WikiLeaks. The release of the documents was designed and timed to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election and undermine the Clinton Campaign.

The Trump campaign showed interest in the WikiLeaks releases and in the summer and fall of 2016, CENSOREDCENSORED CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED WikiLeaks' first Clinton-related release CENSORED, the Trump Campaign stayed in contact CENSORED about Wikileaks' activities. The investigation was unable to resolve CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED WikiLeaks's release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016, the same day a video from years earlier was published of Trump using graphic language about women.

(I'm curious whether with the new administration, we'll get some of that CENSORED parts made visible.)

There's ton of other stuff in there, about which specific military units of the GRU did what parts of the operation, which specific people were involved. This isn't just some vague "some Russian hacker, perhaps". We know who, when, and how.

Gee, have the Trumpist media been lying to you and keeping you uninformed?

[DonaldD]

Source please?

    

How is it even possible for you to be this uninformed?

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian-intelligence-officers-hacking-offenses-related-2016-election

[yossarian22c]

Source please?

    

How is it even possible for you to be this uninformed?

Its not his fault. There are professional disinformation people that exist in society so nothing is knowable and no one is accountable for any falsehood they believe or spread. 

[DonaldD]

Its not his fault. There are professional disinformation people that exist in society so nothing is knowable and no one is accountable for any falsehood they believe or spread. 

It's not like this is even the first or second time these things have been pointed out on Ornery...  it's like wmLambert's ability to ignore, basically, everything.

[LetterRip]

Many people when they face cognitive dissonance about a group or person they feel loyalty to - their brain will misremember or forget evidence that is contrary to their preferred belief.

[Wayward Son]

Fenring, I would like to add that your depiction of Russian interference is incorrect.

Russians did not simply express their opinions on the internet.  They pretended and purported to be Americans.  They told lies while saying they were Americans.  They tried to get people to go to rallies, on both sides of an issue, at the same place and same time, to create conflict.

Their actions were deliberately and purposefully designed to sow discontent and chaos before the 2016 election.

If they had just expressed their opinions, I would have no problem with that.  But they did not.  They tried to sabotage our electoral process.

Don't make it sound like they didn't.

[Wayward Son]

In case anyone is interested, The Washington Post has a video that shows the fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt and what led up to it.  Sad and tragic.

[msquared]

One take away from that very disturbing video is the claim that Blue Lives Matter. That crowd could care less about Blue Lives.

[Fenring]

Let's go further and just state outright that all leaks and Wikileaks documents that had anything to do with the DNC were the Russian government, and say I don't dispute any part of that: in that case I would have to grant that Russia did interfere in a criminal manner, although ironically in order to release true documents that showed borderline illegal activity going on within the U.S. So this is bad, and incidentally I have no doubt that international intrigue of this type goes on all the time, but I still find it fascinating to call the release of incriminating documents to be an attack on democracy itself, which is sort of the main point I was making. I would call the shady activities that were revealed (through hacking, we have agreed) to be the attack on democracy.

To WS, the illegitimate use of sock puppet accounts and astroturfing is certainly not good, you won't hear me defending that, but once again unlike South Korea or China we don't really have controls in a 'free society' to prevent someone making themselves look like someone else online unless it's outright identity theft, which is obviously illegal. But creating a fake persona online is to wit not illegal, and having it claim it's an American in order for its statements to sound more appealing is likewise annoying but not preventable unless we insist on social security #'s to use the internet like they do in some Asian countries.

[TheDrake]

Speaking of cognitive dissonance:

Pro-Trump social media users suggested that the video posted on Thursday night was created using “deepfake” technology, claiming his head “doesn’t seem to move or match properly with his body,” according to one user on Parler.

Deepfakes are videos in which a person’s face is digitally altered, often to put words into the mouths of celebrities, royalty or politicians.

Some thought that Trump was forced into making the video, saying that he is being “held hostage”.

[yossarian22c]

Just going to put this out there again...

I think there is a non-zero chance that section 4 of the 25th amendment will be exercised before the end of the year.

The president incited a riot on the capital and then sat in a bunker and watched it happen. 25th amendment, impeachment, get him gone.

Chao is resigning from the cabinet. I think that takes the 25th off the table. Trump loyalists hold to many other cabinet level offices (those that are filled with someone senate confirmed anyway). If the 25th was strongly in play I would expect cabinet level people to stay instead of resign. Pelosi should bring up a vote for impeachment tomorrow and send it to the Senate immediately.

DeVos is resigning as well. 25th option looks really dead if the few people not totally in Trump's pocket are quitting instead of ousting him.

[TheDrake]

Just going to put this out there again...

I think there is a non-zero chance that section 4 of the 25th amendment will be exercised before the end of the year.

The president incited a riot on the capital and then sat in a bunker and watched it happen. 25th amendment, impeachment, get him gone.

Chao is resigning from the cabinet. I think that takes the 25th off the table. Trump loyalists hold to many other cabinet level offices (those that are filled with someone senate confirmed anyway). If the 25th was strongly in play I would expect cabinet level people to stay instead of resign. Pelosi should bring up a vote for impeachment tomorrow and send it to the Senate immediately.

DeVos is resigning as well. 25th option looks really dead if the few people not totally in Trump's pocket are quitting instead of ousting him.

Cabinet doesn't even matter. They never get Pence on board.

[yossarian22c]

DeVos is resigning as well. 25th option looks really dead if the few people not totally in Trump's pocket are quitting instead of ousting him.

Cabinet doesn't even matter. They never get Pence on board.

I thought Trump unleashing a mob on him might change his attitude.

[TheDeamon]

Again, sitting back and trying to watch this as an objective observer (notice I said trying... not necessarily doing), the media double standard is on display.

I did love the CNN talking head on Tuesday talking to Wolf about how these extremists were "terrorizing all of Washington D.C."

Hey, kind of like how the Portland riots were only happening "in a few city blocks" right?

[TheDeamon]

How about all the conservatives here publicly state that Trump's call for Pence to be able to reject whatever electoral votes he didn't like as the most unamerican idea you've ever seen a President put forward. Who knew Gore could have just declared himself president by rejecting the electors from Florida? Talk about an idea to set up one party rule forever.

Already covered elsewhere, it's stupid, it is political suicide, it doesn't need to be called anything else.

Any party which attempts, and succeeds, at trying such a thing is going to be tossed out of congress on the next election cycle. Meaning it would only buy then 2 years of actual power, and place the country in limbo for 2 more before all but the last third of them in the Senate gets tossed out within the following four years.

[TheDeamon]

And for anyone who still thinks Antifa/BLM was behind the rioting and taking over the Capitol, here's a report that indicates it was planned at least a couple of weeks ago.

“We came up with the idea to occupy just outside the CAPITOL on Jan 6th,” leaders of the Stop the Steal movement wrote on Dec. 23. They called their Wednesday demonstration the Wild Protest, a name taken from a tweet by Trump that encouraged his supporters to take their grievances to the streets of Washington. “Will be wild,” the president tweeted.

Unless most of Trump's supporters are Antifa/BLM, then this was a Trumpist "event." 

"Just outside the Capitol" != "Running around inside the building"

And someone still doesn't want to understand how an agent provocateur operates, at least when it goes against their interests. After all, that property destruction during the BLM riots was all done by violent right wing extremist groups right?

What would a right winger be doing participating in a left wing rally?

At what point have you seen any of us deny that right wingers were involved in what happened?

All that we've said is that we expect to find that members of AntiFa will be found to have been among the people involved in what happened on Tuesday. The majority will almost certainly have been Trump supporters.

[Wayward Son]

To WS, the illegitimate use of sock puppet accounts and astroturfing is certainly not good, you won't hear me defending that, but once again unlike South Korea or China we don't really have controls in a 'free society' to prevent someone making themselves look like someone else online unless it's outright identity theft, which is obviously illegal. But creating a fake persona online is to wit not illegal, and having it claim it's an American in order for its statements to sound more appealing is likewise annoying but not preventable unless we insist on social security #'s to use the internet like they do in some Asian countries.

Fenring, it may not be illegal to make a fake persona on the internet, but it is certainly illegal for a foreigner to make a fake persona with the intention of influencing the outcome of an American election.

And regardless of whether it was technically illegal or not, such actions tried to suborn the outcome of the election through deceit.  So it is still much more than simply expressing an opinion about a foreign election.

[Wayward Son]

"Just outside the Capitol" != "Running around inside the building"

And someone still doesn't want to understand how an agent provocateur operates, at least when it goes against their interests. After all, that property destruction during the BLM riots was all done by violent right wing extremist groups right?

What would a right winger be doing participating in a left wing rally?

At what point have you seen any of us deny that right wingers were involved in what happened?

All that we've said is that we expect to find that members of AntiFa will be found to have been among the people involved in what happened on Tuesday. The majority will almost certainly have been Trump supporters.

So you're saying this was a riot of Trump supporters, with maybe some assistance and perhaps "egging on" by some people on the Left?  OK, I can agree to that.  As long as we agree that the main responsibility for this attempted sedition were the Trump supporters.

As opposed to those who have stated or implied that the responsibility lies with Antifa and/or BLM. (Not necessarily anyone on this board.)

[TheDeamon]

Was shooting her justified?  You make the call.

The officer is going to have a difficult time demonstrating imminent threat to life and limb. Ample capability existed to retreat.

There is a vague "national security"  claim to be made (threat to congress and classified material in the building), but at least on the DoD side, "national security threat" almost always referenced weapons stockpiles. Which probably don't exist on The Hill.

The funny thing that doesn't seem to getting much mention in the past few days.

Security on the Mall falls on the White House. Security at the White House falls on the White House.

Security on Capital Hill?

It falls on the Speaker of the House.

So all these people keep calling attention to the differences in response and keep wanting to blame Trump for the lackluster protection of Capital Hill, but can't seem to be bothered to do some very basic research.

[TheDeamon]

One take away from that very disturbing video is the claim that Blue Lives Matter. That crowd could care less about Blue Lives.

"The Boogs" are rather anti police, and there is a lot of overlap between them and Q-Anon. Not shocking.

The Boogs are not mainstream conservative though, at least for now.

[Aris Katsaris]

Any party which attempts, and succeeds, at trying such a thing is going to be tossed out of congress on the next election cycle. Meaning it would only buy then 2 years of actual power, and place the country in limbo for 2 more before all but the last third of them in the Senate gets tossed out within the following four years.

You don't get it, mate. What Ted Cruz actually tried to do depended on the Congress.

What Trump wanted Pence to do (and he refused) only depends on the Vice President. Trump called Pence a coward for not tossing out the electoral votes, all by himself, without Senate or House agreement. The process you saw on the 6th is not the process Trump was urging for.

So Gore, as Vice-president on 2000 (according to Trump) without any Congressional agreement either, can just throw out the Florida votes, and get himself elected President. Then his Vice-President can assure that Gore gets reelected on 2004, and perhaps elect himself on 2008. So forth, so forth.

No Congress is needed.

The elected Congress deciding who is the next President would just make you into a parliamentary democracy. Unconstitutional but not by itself inherently undemocratic (in fact I generally consider parliamentary systems better for democracy but that's a wholly different discussion). But the Vice President deciding who is the next President however turns you into a dictatorship.

And I for one didn't accuse Trump of wanting a parliamentary democracy, I accused him of being a dictator-wannabe.

[TheDeamon]

Any party which attempts, and succeeds, at trying such a thing is going to be tossed out of congress on the next election cycle. Meaning it would only buy then 2 years of actual power, and place the country in limbo for 2 more before all but the last third of them in the Senate gets tossed out within the following four years.

You don't get it, mate. What Ted Cruz actually tried to do depended on the Congress.

What Trump wanted Pence to do (and he refused) only depends on the Vice President. Trump called Pence a coward for not tossing out the electoral votes, all by himself, without Senate or House agreement. The process you saw on the 6th is not the process Trump was urging for.

So Gore, as Vice-president on 2000 (according to Trump) without any Congressional agreement either, can just throw out the Florida votes, and get himself elected President. Then his Vice-President can assure that Gore gets reelected on 2004, and perhaps elect himself on 2008. So forth, so forth.

No Congress is needed.

The elected Congress deciding who is the next President would just make you into a parliamentary democracy. Unconstitutional but not by itself inherently undemocratic (in fact I generally consider parliamentary systems better for democracy but that's a wholly different discussion). But the Vice President deciding who is the next President however turns you into a dictatorship.

And I for one didn't accuse Trump of wanting a parliamentary democracy, I accused him of being a dictator-wannabe.

Still doesn't work. All Pence could have done is influence the selection of the Vice President in any event. And even that gets dubious if the House accepts their copy of the Electoral Votes, as it takes both houses in any event.

Most likely process, should he have attempted that is the House then brings up Articles of Impeachment, Pence gets impeached, the senate the ratifies the results that the House had(or request new copies of the relevant elector slate from the relevant states and validates that). In no way does Pence reliably stop the process as it relates to the President explicitly, as that is done by the House of Representatives.

[DonaldD]

So all these people keep calling attention to the differences in response and keep wanting to blame Trump for the lackluster protection of Capital Hill, but can't seem to be bothered to do some very basic research.

I don't know that it is Trump's fault, as the deployment of the National Guard is (I believe) delegated, but the Speaker of the House is absolutely not in that chain of command... what Trump can be blamed for is inciting the attackers and promising to lead them to the Capitol.

Whether the Capitol police were properly prepared, and whether they could have bettered organized with the National Guard in advance of the attack, given how MAGA and Q-anon were openly discussing the attack online?  That is a definite possibility, and one that should be investigated.

[TheDeamon]

So all these people keep calling attention to the differences in response and keep wanting to blame Trump for the lackluster protection of Capital Hill, but can't seem to be bothered to do some very basic research.

I don't know that it is Trump's fault, as the deployment of the National Guard is (I believe) delegated, but the Speaker of the House is absolutely not in that chain of command... what Trump can be blamed for is inciting the attackers and promising to lead them to the Capitol.

They could have made the request at a minimum. Before the Capitol was breached.

But I guess I need to step it back slightly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

As the chief law enforcement officer of the House, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for security in the House wing of the United States Capitol, the House office buildings, and on adjacent grounds. Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber.

But that Sergeant and by extension the Speaker, are only responsible for the House side of Capital Hill.

The Senate has its own Sergeant at Arms, and they ostensibly "work for the Senate" which basically means a weird amalgam of the Senate Majority Leader and the Vice President (as President of the Senate).

Together with the Architect of the Capitol, they form a board that is jointly responsible for the security of Capital Hill, although leadership of the board alternates between the two Sergeants, the Architect is there more as an advisor.

But in any case, Security at Capitol Hill is not managed by the President, it is managed by 2 agents nominated and appointed by Congress, and an Architect who is nominated by PotUS, but subject to approval by Congress.

[Fenring]

And regardless of whether it was technically illegal or not, such actions tried to suborn the outcome of the election through deceit.  So it is still much more than simply expressing an opinion about a foreign election.

Ok, then let's make a deal: if I agree with you on this, would you agree it should be effectively illegal for an American to make a public statement without stating their conflicts of interest upfront? For instance a talking head on TV or on Twitter should be required on their profile to write "paid lobbyist for X corp" or "sits on board of XYZ think tank"? If you'll agree then I will too. I am actually quite favorable to removing fake personas and unnamed allegiances in regards to political speech, so that messaging is transparently coming from who it's actually coming from, whether a private citizen or a foreign national. "I am a Russian citizen and think Hillary stinks" would be very upfront, as would "I work for Haliburton and think electric cars stink". I am game for both, what do you think? What I don't like is sneering at 'foreign' people who do things IMO not even nearly as bad as what local people do. It really pushes my buttons to get up in arms about Russia messing with us when the two parties are already messing with us.

[fizz]

What I don't like is sneering at 'foreign' people who do things IMO not even nearly as bad as what local people do. It really pushes my buttons to get up in arms about Russia messing with us when the two parties are already messing with us.

Talking as a foreigner, the ethical problem is not what Russians did: Russians will do what Russians will do, and Americans themselves are far from extraneous to playing dirty tricks to influence foreign countries internal politics (*cough* Cile and Pinochet, just to name one, but my country itself was for decades a battle zone in the cold war between you two, and likely still is).

The problem your own countrymen have is with Trump, first as a candidate to the place as First Citizen of America, and after that as the aforementioned First citizen, aligning his personal interests to an at least partially hostile foreign country when it's attempting to play some of those dirty tricks against your own country.

<shrug> It's not my country, but if it were, in your place I would be pissed. Like I'm pissed at my own countrymen that sold or sell us out to, depending on the occasion, Russia or the US.

[Wayward Son]

And regardless of whether it was technically illegal or not, such actions tried to suborn the outcome of the election through deceit.  So it is still much more than simply expressing an opinion about a foreign election.

Ok, then let's make a deal: if I agree with you on this, would you agree it should be effectively illegal for an American to make a public statement without stating their conflicts of interest upfront? For instance a talking head on TV or on Twitter should be required on their profile to write "paid lobbyist for X corp" or "sits on board of XYZ think tank"? If you'll agree then I will too. I am actually quite favorable to removing fake personas and unnamed allegiances in regards to political speech, so that messaging is transparently coming from who it's actually coming from, whether a private citizen or a foreign national. "I am a Russian citizen and think Hillary stinks" would be very upfront, as would "I work for Haliburton and think electric cars stink". I am game for both, what do you think? What I don't like is sneering at 'foreign' people who do things IMO not even nearly as bad as what local people do. It really pushes my buttons to get up in arms about Russia messing with us when the two parties are already messing with us.

I would not be opposed to making it illegal to make a public statement without stating conflicts of interest, although I would caution about making it too severe or burdensome.  Would holding stock in a mutual fund that is part of someone's 401K make the person part of Haiburton, for instance?

However, I would wholeheartedly agree to make it illegal to create a false persona or "sock puppet" to influence political opinion on a community or above scale.

I would say that what Russia did was worse than if it were done by an American, because at least the American would have to suffer the consequences of his actions, being a part of this country.  Russia would be immune to many of those consequences.

[DonaldD]

It really pushes my buttons to get up in arms about Russia messing with us when the two parties are already messing with us.

Right - since US political parties are flawed, it is therefore rational to ignore other countries' attempt to destabilize the USA; and simply pointing out foreign countries' attacks on US democracy, and attempting to defend the country against them, should actually make US citizens angry.

You do realize that is insane and a recipe for the destruction of democracy?

[Wayward Son]

If one of the parties does something to destabilize America, and we are subsequently invaded, everyone loses, including the parties.

If Russia does something to destabilize America, and we are subsequently invaded, Russian wins.

[TheDeamon]

You do realize that is insane and a recipe for the destruction of democracy?

It probably just did self-destruct, we just haven't noticed/verified it yet, the smoke has yet to clear.