Pencemegeddon

[yossarian22c]

I could also completely see AntiFa's black block inserting themselves into the activities going on in order to discredit their foes. And as I've pointed out there is some social media reporting involving at least a couple of the higher profile persons in yesterday's insanity(in particular the wanna be Viking),  which indicates they were either BLM or AntiFa affiliated as of this past summer.

The "wannabe-Viking" has been identified as Jake Angeli, who is a well-known far-right QAnon and Trump supporter -- he was indeed present at a BLM rally, but to OPPOSE the BLM rally you idiot, not in support of it.

That was part of the "uncertain provenance" of the evidence and need to wait to obtain further information. He was presumed BLM until demonstrated otherwise, you've demonstrated otherwise. Good work.

Now there still is the (alleged) Philly Anti-Fa guy to deal with just yet.

Seriously? Everyone violent is presumed anti-fa until proven otherwise?

This is election fraud all over again. There could have been a few fraudulent votes, there may of been a few false flag operatives in the Trump crowd. The claim that whatever small number of fraudulent votes or false flag operatives were determinative of the outcome in either case is completely without evidence, credibility, and believability.

[TheDrake]

Identified so far

Jake Angeli - Qanon
Nick Ochs - Proud Boys
Tim Gionet - White Nationalist
Richard Barnett - Engaged Patriots

Jake was seen holding a Qanon sign at the BLM event. But I guess that was just a secret front? Come on. Own your people, Deamon.

[TheDeamon]

Seriously? Everyone violent is presumed anti-fa until proven otherwise?

This is election fraud all over again. There could have been a few fraudulent votes, there may of been a few false flag operatives in the Trump crowd. The claim that whatever small number of fraudulent votes or false flag operatives were determinative of the outcome in either case is completely without evidence, credibility, and believability.

You have seen me reference Bundy haven't you?

[yossarian22c]

That's some nice self serving BS. How many false flag anti-fa operatives do you think were there? 5? 10? 100? That crowd was enraged by Trump then he pointed them in the direction of the capital and they did what he wanted them to do.

For breaking windows? Depending on how wide spread that behavior was? Just 3 or 4 might do.

Virtual conceptions of the "wisdom of the crowd" tend to forget just how dumb an actual crowd of people can be as people "get caught up in the moment." They're often very easily led if given the right stimuli, Trump certainly didn't help improve the situation. If anything, he helped make them easier to manipulate.

I agree mobs are about as smart as their dumbest members. That being said, from the video footage I've seen of people "storming the gates" so to speak, its hard to believe that it was all orchestrated and planned by a few really clever false flag operatives. Have you watched the people storming into the capital? Tearing down barriers, chasing the police, climbing the walls, shoving the police, breaking into the house floor and lots of other actions. It doesn't look like it was just a couple people leading the charge. It looks like a mob driven by the hatred and righteous indignation Trump fed them and then pointed them towards the capital.

[rightleft22]

This should only show everyone how dangerous information warfare (which is waged against all Americans every day) is. Because if a lawful election really was undermined by corruption and fraud then this would not only be a legitimate action to take, but in the American spirit would almost be required if you had any honor. So only on the grounds that the fraud charge is bogus does this instead look like sore loser bullying. And this is a distinction not just about worldview but about actual information on the ground. X is either true or it is not true, and the extent to which information is no longer trusted because words on a page are just chicken scratch handed down from "unnamed insider sources" or "senior officials" means that it being true or not true is utterly beyond anyone's ability to discern. This isn't an R vs D issue, it's an issue fundamental to the very fabric of the American media and political system. It pays to spin truth, lie, distort, omit facts, and create narratives often from whole cloth. You can claim a gas attack in Syria was done by Assad, and who other than 0.0000001% of the population is actually there on scene inspecting evidence to know whether he did it or his opponents, blaming him for it? For that matter, how can anyone even know there was a gas attack? Pictures? But we know that MSM networks are caught all the time using fake or old photos to show 'breaking news'. They are just Hollywood television studios where their product is "news style programming". That they will typically still report on actual events is a given; you have to mostly stick to real stuff for the scheme to work. But beyond that there's a reason why many people don't trust even the most basic information, anything ranging from climate change to vaccines to whether an election was fraudulent or not.

You can blame the Trumpers if you like, but they, like Trump himself, are a symptom of a deeply ingrained problem that is perpetuated through denial mostly. 'No, that couldn't happen in my country, the problem is THEM.' That's why scapegoating works, it's believable and easier than having to get up and do something. And the scapegoat can even be guilty to a degree of this or that, that makes it even easier to do; MAGA people might be easy prey to pick on. But they are not the reason why the media isn't trustworthy.

Again a reasoned ground where no one is a fault or held accountable.  It is the  symptom of a ingrained problem at fault never those that manipulate and exasperate the problem.  Trump just a play in a game that is flawed, not his fault. Not his followers fault who don't understand the scientific method and so turn to conspiracy theory's, and the lack of proof as proof. Can't blame them for ignorance and repeating lies told them.

No one accountable. You stand nowhere.

What is this 'media' if the message is the medium?

[Fenring]

More false equivalence BS. The election wasn't undermined by corruption and fraud. Every state has certified their votes, Barr said the justice department found no evidence of fraud, Trump lawsuits have presented zero fraudulent votes in court, Trump's own head of election security certified the election was secure, and no one has found any widespread voter fraud efforts. All of the certification and statements of accuracy were done in public by named officials and judges, democrats and republicans not unnamed sources.

You gotta re-read my post, I never said any of this stuff. We are talking about people who presumably think the election was stolen. Why do they think this? Did this new breed of stupid person suddenly emerge? Where were they 15 years ago? My thesis is that information warfare has disintegrated everyone's belief in information that's out there, which includes true information. (duh)

[Fenring]

Again a reasoned ground where no one is a fault or held accountable.  It is the  symptom of a ingrained problem at fault never those that manipulate and exasperate the problem.  Trump just a play in a game that is flawed, not his fault. Not his followers fault who don't understand the scientific method and so turn to conspiracy theory's, and the lack of proof as proof. Can't blame them for ignorance and repeating lies told them.

No one accountable. You stand nowhere.

What is this 'media' if the message is the medium?

You got it backward. People who blame Trumpists are the ones who believe no one is responsible. That way, the environment itself is totally blame-free and when in a particular instance people behave badly it's just taken as some isolated inexplicable incident. So naturally you'll just call them evil and leave it at that. I am saying, in the interest of assigning blame, that various people are *in fact* responsible for directly and indirectly creating this information dystopia. All Americans end up paying for this in one way or another. That specific Americans are acting out now in an unhealthy way is (by my thesis) a symptom of the general problem. You want to blame the Trumpist and their leader, I say that's the head-in-sand approach.

[rightleft22]

More false equivalence BS. The election wasn't undermined by corruption and fraud. Every state has certified their votes, Barr said the justice department found no evidence of fraud, Trump lawsuits have presented zero fraudulent votes in court, Trump's own head of election security certified the election was secure, and no one has found any widespread voter fraud efforts. All of the certification and statements of accuracy were done in public by named officials and judges, democrats and republicans not unnamed sources.

You gotta re-read my post, I never said any of this stuff. We are talking about people who presumably think the election was stolen. Why do they think this? Did this new breed of stupid person suddenly emerge? Where were they 15 years ago? My thesis is that information warfare has disintegrated everyone's belief in information that's out there, which includes true information. (duh)

What you say is true, but where do you stand on those the manipulate and exasperate this problem? What comes first the chicken or the egg. Was Trump duped by a disbelieving information or did he help create it. believing only what he wanted to believe and manipulating the mistrust.
Perhaps its the education system to blame not teaching people to look past conformation bias - the new old stupid.  Don't blame the stupid blame the education system and the "media" what ever that is today. 

[rightleft22]

You got it backward. People who blame Trumpists are the ones who believe no one is responsible. That way, the environment itself is totally blame-free and when in a particular instance people behave badly it's just taken as some isolated inexplicable incident.

Perhaps if one only reasoned in 'ether or' terms but that is no better the the error of 'bias conformation'

The problem has become systemic, part of the solution is to hold people accountable while addressing the systemic issues. Either or by them selves won't solve anything. 

 When truth is relative and character is old fashioned where do we stand?

[DonaldD]

He became "presumed BLM" when evidence surfaced "linking him to BLM," until context was provided to demonstrate that link was his being a counter-protestor at a BLM rally.

Except there was no such evidence.  There was evidence of him being at a protest where there were unaffiliated protesters, BLM protesters, Proud Boys protesters, Anti-fascists, White Supremacists, Sons of Odin etc, etc.  That you then proceeded to link him to BLM is evidence of your bias, not of his affiliation. (BTW, the viking outfit should have given a hint...)

[Aris Katsaris]

Why are they presumed to be BLM and antifa when it was a  Trump rally?  It should be assumed they are Trump supporters unless you can prove otherwise.

He became "presumed BLM" when evidence surfaced "linking him to BLM," until context was provided to demonstrate that link was his being a counter-protestor at a BLM rally.

See, people being covert agents provocateur often tend to consistently wear highly visible Viking attire in rallies of opposing sides, so that they're instantly recognizable across the nation. /s

You should have known this didn't make sense from the start.

And even if you somehow thought he was present in different occassions in support of both BLM and the Trumpist crowd, what would have been the reason for you to think him a BLM agent in the Trump rally, and not a Trumpist agent in the BLM rally? Or you know, just a troublemaker who seeks trouble in all forms?

[DonaldD]

You got it backward. People who blame Trumpists are the ones who believe no one is responsible. That way, the environment itself is totally blame-free and when in a particular instance people behave badly it's just taken as some isolated inexplicable incident. So naturally you'll just call them evil and leave it at that. I am saying, in the interest of assigning blame, that various people are *in fact* responsible for directly and indirectly creating this information dystopia. All Americans end up paying for this in one way or another. That specific Americans are acting out now in an unhealthy way is (by my thesis) a symptom of the general problem. You want to blame the Trumpist and their leader, I say that's the head-in-sand approach.

Head in the sand... hmm.

Trump has been very explicit about his media technique.  He took ownership of it before he was elected. To paraphrase "I attack you (the media) demonize you and call you fake so that nobody believes you when you accurately report what I do or say."

[Fenring]

Perhaps if one only reasoned in 'ether or' terms but that is no better the the error of 'bias conformation'

The problem has become systemic, part of the solution is to hold people accountable while addressing the systemic issues. Either or by them selves won't solve anything. 

 When truth is relative and character is old fashioned where do we stand?

There are people who systematically destroy information integrity for money, and they know they are doing this at least on some level. Whether Trump is duplicitous and doesn't believe any of the stuff he says, or whether he's crazy and believes false things, might change whether he's part of the problem or part of the symptom, but that's not really that important. Professional spin doctors, lobbyists,  quid pro quo 'business operators', and others like this who want results in terms of people behaving how they want very much care about public activity suiting their needs, and not about whether it's good for the public. You could argue at some level this is endemic to any system where $$$ and power trumps character, which you do talk about sometimes. But I don't think it's fair to compare whackos who have been misled, from people whose literal job it is to mislead people. You can see it all over the place, even if silly arenas like food science. Remember the nation-wide food pyramid scam, executed by corporate goons who wanted to sell corn syrup? Or we could go back to the classics, about tobacco 'research and PR teams' who job it was to refute that cigarettes were bad for you, or oil execs who did the same. We're talking people who would literally kill for money, so I don't think putting dumb Trumpists next to that is fair. It's just that instead of undermining knowledge in a particular area (like food health, or gasoline dependency) the dystopia involves undermining all knowledge so that it is hard to tell if anything you believe is actually true; or worse, when you don't care if it's true, so long as it fits your internal narrative.

[TheDrake]

“In the lead-up to yesterday’s violence, the Capitol rioters needed a place to plan for how the violence would unfold. They found this on unmoderated pro-Trump forums such as TheDonald.win,” Jones said. “There, they posted their plans to take matters into their own hands and literally threatened to kill lawmakers. They encouraged each other to bring illegal weapons. When this came to fruition, the real-life actions provided fodder for those on the forum.”

I guess all those guys are also Antifa?

[TheDrake]

“Get the firing squads ready. Pence goes FIRST.” Wood wrote in a Parler post that has been directed toward user feeds nearly 3 million times.

On TheDonald, where users had proudly shared their travel itineraries for Wednesday’s demonstrations and planned meetups at hotels and restaurants near the White House, the triumphant mood quickly soured after Pence refused to intervene, with thousands of commenters labeling him a criminal traitor compromised by the “swamp.”

Even as they posted, their real-world compatriots tore through the Capitol building voicing the same anger. “Where's Pence, show yourself!” one rioter said after barging onto the Senate floor.

“Sleep well tonight patriots. … You are going to love how this movie ends,” wrote “StormIsUponUs,” a QAnon-espousing account with more than 450,000 followers on Parler. “'Nothing can stop what’s coming’ wasn’t just a catch-phrase.”

Man, Antifa has been busy.

[rightleft22]

There are people who systematically destroy information integrity for money, and they know they are doing this at least on some level. Whether Trump is duplicitous and doesn't believe any of the stuff he says, or whether he's crazy and believes false things, might change whether he's part of the problem or part of the symptom, but that's not really that important.

Through ignorance or duplicity we are still responsible for our actions. Trump is accountable for his crazy or believing false things. Those that support him are accountable for the things he stood for, crazy or duped. fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

But I don't think it's fair to compare whackos who have been misled

Their is a difference yet how do you show the 'misled' where they went wrong if you don't hold them accountable.

  the dystopia involves undermining all knowledge so that it is hard to tell if anything you believe is actually true; or worse, when you don't care if it's true, so long as it fits your internal narrative

Not caring what is true, indifference is a individual character flaw IMO. Why are you so keen to let the off the hook .
Discernment if a skill that a person of character tries to cultivate hard or not. They take responsibility for their success and failures - learn better do better. To throw up their hands because its hard and so declare nothing is true and so believe as that wish is their failing.

Your argmuents remind me of the joke. Looks like *censored*, smells like *censored*, tastes like *censored*... good thing I didn't step in it.

[TheDrake]

Speaking of misinformation:

Gaetz wasn’t alone. On Fox News Channel’s prime-time shows, hosts and guests similarly claimed that perhaps the mob was spurred on by antifa. The fringier networks that have blossomed in the wake of the election made similar claims.

The genesis for the assertion appears to be an article published by the right-wing Washington Times that claimed that a “retired military officer” had provided information from a firm called XRVision that used facial recognition software to identify several people who invaded the Capitol — and that two of them were linked to antifa. A third was “someone who shows up at climate and Black Lives Matter protests in the West.”

In a statement to The Washington Post, XRVision executive Yaacov Apelbaum denied his firm had provided any such analysis.

“XRVision didn’t generate any composites or detection imagery for the Washington Times nor for a ‘retired military officer,’ ” Apelbaum said, “and did not authorize them to make any such representations.”

What happened, Apelbaum explained, was that the firm “performed an analysis on the footage” and, in doing so, was able to identify three people.

“We concluded that two of individuals … were affiliated with the Maryland Skinheads and the National Socialist Movements,” the firm determined. “These two are known Nazi organizations, they are not Antifa. The third individual identified … was an actor with some QAnon promotion history. Again, no Antifa identification was made for him either.”

[TheDeamon]

And even if you somehow thought he was present in different occassions in support of both BLM and the Trumpist crowd, what would have been the reason for you to think him a BLM agent in the Trump rally, and not a Trumpist agent in the BLM rally? Or you know, just a troublemaker who seeks trouble in all forms?

All I knew about the guy was that social media was circulating a photo (with no context) of him "attending a BLM rally in Arizona" in fact that photo was what triggered my initial comment last night, prior to becoming aware of the "Philly AntiFa Guy" which I have not bothered to see if it has been debunked as of yet because I'm not going to consider anything reliable for a couple more days, unless he also proves to be a person "of unique standing" for whatever reason.

I've now seen at least one side by side photo of one of the clowns who ran amok in the House.

Claims are the guy was running around in support of a BLM rally in Arizona this past summer, same tattoos on open display even, and it certainly looks like the same guy. But not knowing the provenance of the June photo, I'll wait for somewhere a little more reputable to report on it.

So based on unsupported social media claims he was shifted into "presumed BLM/AntiFa" pending further information, with a fair bit of skepticism as to the BLM/AntiFa tag being correct. Amazing how that worked out.

[LetterRip]

The guy is QAnon not BLM/Antifa.

https://money.yahoo.com/qanon-supporter-arizona-dressed-fur-221131030.html

[DonaldD]

Occam has this nice razor for sale, yet Trump supporters are proudly walking around like extras from an episode of Duck Dynasty.

[DonaldD]

Calling that an insurrection is stretching reality to a breaking point.

Right.

Because an armed group, breaking into the seat of government to stop said government from acting upon a transfer of power to the political opponents of those involved in the revolt is not the very definition of insurrection.

[DonaldD]

Elizabeth from Knoxville certainly thinks it's at least a revolution...

Reporter: Ma'am, what happened to you?

Elizabeth: I got Maced!

Reporter: You got Maced..? And what happened - you were trying to go inside the Capitol?

Elizabeth: Yeah… I made it like a foot inside and they pushed me out and they Maced me.

Reporter: What's your name - where are you from?

Elizabeth: My name is Elizabeth - I'm from Knoxville Tennessee.

Reporter: Why did you want to go in?

Elizabeth: We're storming the Capitol!  It's a revolution!

Reporter: Thank you.

[Fenring]

There are people who systematically destroy information integrity for money, and they know they are doing this at least on some level. Whether Trump is duplicitous and doesn't believe any of the stuff he says, or whether he's crazy and believes false things, might change whether he's part of the problem or part of the symptom, but that's not really that important.

Through ignorance or duplicity we are still responsible for our actions. Trump is accountable for his crazy or believing false things. Those that support him are accountable for the things he stood for, crazy or duped. fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me.

But I don't think it's fair to compare whackos who have been misled

Their is a difference yet how do you show the 'misled' where they went wrong if you don't hold them accountable.

  the dystopia involves undermining all knowledge so that it is hard to tell if anything you believe is actually true; or worse, when you don't care if it's true, so long as it fits your internal narrative

Not caring what is true, indifference is a individual character flaw IMO. Why are you so keen to let the off the hook .
Discernment if a skill that a person of character tries to cultivate hard or not. They take responsibility for their success and failures - learn better do better. To throw up their hands because its hard and so declare nothing is true and so believe as that wish is their failing.

Your argmuents remind me of the joke. Looks like *censored*, smells like *censored*, tastes like *censored*... good thing I didn't step in it.

I don't know if you intend this, but your arguments sound like a classic bootstrapping position, that everything everyone does is in the end purely their responsibility, and no matter which factors led to that they are finally the ones to look at when they do things. While I'm not antagonistic to insisting on personal discipline, there is always a context and an environment. Divorcing actions from their proximate environment devolves into preachy accusations. Star Trek, for instance, which was once the flagship of humanism, is very clear that (a) things get bad before they get good, because people don't just bootstrap themselves to virtue, and (b) that a healthy environment is the only way to nurture healthy civic values. Chicken and egg, yes, and it can spiral upwards or downwards (or get a shock due to a disaster). I think the desire to go after people and name villains comes from not knowing what else to do, and feeling like you have to do something. It's that helplessness which breeds anger or contempt. It is extremely difficult to determine - in any age - how to supplant a toxic power structure. So far the only answer has been blood flowing in the streets. People now seem mostly unwilling to entertain that, because they have too much to lose, and it's yet to be determined how to effect that kind of change without killing. The system at present doesn't actual permit for any other method. Answer me - if I asked you what you could tangibly do about people whose money can buy influence, shaping policy to create harm in turn generating more money, what would you do about such an intangible, structural, and non-localized phenomenon? A religious person might say just pray. A bohemian might say chill out. Personally I think real change comes best one-on-one, not by ranting about some 'group' or section of society.

[TheDeamon]

Calling that an insurrection is stretching reality to a breaking point.

Because an armed group, breaking into the seat of government to stop said government from acting upon a transfer of power to the political opponents of those involved in the revolt is not the very definition of insurrection.

Be careful of being a little too literal, or liberal if you prefer, in your use of the term.

Congratulations on finding a dictionary and using the very literal definition of the term. Now consider how broadly that usage can be applied.

"Proper use" for a more civil society is going to set the bar a LOT higher than that. Anyone who wants to set the bar where you did wants to operate their Government like it is the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Communist China.

And from the footage I've seen, your "armed group" doesn't seem to be packing much in the way of weaponry. There might have been a few here and there, but they were very much the exception, not the rule. They also weren't particularly organized.

Sure some may have coordinated online. But from everything I've seen, they quickly devolved into a disorganized rabble with no structure to speak of. The Whiskey Rebellion was a bigger threat to the nation than this "insurrection" was. Where the worst anyone was penalized with was convictions for violating tax law--for violations not actually directly related to the rebellion itself, but failure to abide by the tax law that provoked the rebellion.

[DonaldD]

"We're storming the Capitol!  It's a revolution!"

[TheDeamon]

The guy is QAnon not BLM/Antifa.

https://money.yahoo.com/qanon-supporter-arizona-dressed-fur-221131030.html

News flash, acknowledged earlier in the thread. Some people were deciding to fixate on my "presumed BLM" comment, so I was showing where that came from prior to more information becoming available.

[TheDeamon]

"We're storming the Capitol!  It's a revolution!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown%27s_raid_on_Harpers_Ferry

I just hope we're net setting ourselves up for a bigger fall. Georgia probably just sealed our fate. The next two years are going to be a wild ride.

At least Trump is now solidly on his way out the door. The thing to bear in mind with a number of those idiots who went rampaging through Capital Hill is that for a number of them it wasn't necessarily blind devotion to Trump they were responding to. It's concern that with Democrat control of the House and Senate now being imminent, Trump as PotUS was the only thing likely to put the brakes on. They were completely off their rocker to think the effort would bear fruit(much like John Brown was in regards to Harper's Ferry), and they deserve condemnation for their actions.

But they're probably a rumbling of things yet to come. With the Democrats in full control of the Legislature and the White House, don't be surprised if things go off the rails quickly if they push things too far to the left.

And this latest bad joke of a crises is going to give them a great excuse to crack down on "right wing extremist groups" which given how broadly they like to define that... Is only likely to end in a LOT more blood being spilled.

[TheDrake]

Read through Breitbart comments alone makes it pretty clear most of the members of that group fancy themselves the modern day reincarnation of the Sons of Liberty. They spout daily about a new civil war, fantasize about killing libs, and lovingly stroke their guns. The fact is that most of them were at Trump's rally, and I'm just going to take a wild guess and assume they wouldn't have been allowed that near the president with weapons in violation of DC law. Open carry is prohibited, and concealed carry requires a permit. There were probably a lot more concealed carry than was apparent, and some arrests were made.

If they had spotted Adam Schiff, do you really suppose they'd content themselves with harsh words?

Did they intend that day to depose the duly elected government? Almost certainly not, but it isn't so far off as to provoke incredulity.

[TheDeamon]

Read through Breitbart comments alone makes it pretty clear most of the members of that group fancy themselves the modern day reincarnation of the Sons of Liberty. They spout daily about a new civil war, fantasize about killing libs, and lovingly stroke their guns. The fact is that most of them were at Trump's rally, and I'm just going to take a wild guess and assume they wouldn't have been allowed that near the president with weapons in violation of DC law. Open carry is prohibited, and concealed carry requires a permit. There were probably a lot more concealed carry than was apparent, and some arrests were made.

Between the Georgia Senate race outcome, and the travesty that was the riot on Capitol Hill, I'd probably give decent odds we could be in a civil war before the Presidential Midterms happen. Depending on how far Dems try to push their "golden opportunity" it might get as high as an 80% chance before we finish this month off.

[DonaldD]

 

So your hot take is that Republicans are more likely to join an insurrection than put up with 2 years of policy-making with which they disagree - but that they are just not there yet?  So, this isn't an insurrection - just wait, and you'll show us what a real insurrection looks like?

[DonaldD]

A police officer has now died as a result of the attack on the Capitol.

[TheDrake]

A police officer has now died as a result of the attack on the Capitol.

That wasn't a police officer, that was an antifa crisis actor!

[kidv]

A police officer has now died as a result of the attack on the Capitol.

As posited above. I fear the death of a police officer, if causally related to the riot, may cause a point of no return for the consequences faced by all involved.

[LetterRip]

So if a corporations reckless disregard for the truth was a major contributor in this insurrection, can there be any criminal liability for those who were, originating and disseminating the lies and falsehoods?

[TheDeamon]

So your hot take is that Republicans are more likely to join an insurrection than put up with 2 years of policy-making with which they disagree - but that they are just not there yet?  So, this isn't an insurrection - just wait, and you'll show us what a real insurrection looks like?

Define "Republican" in this case? Most of "the Boogs" don't even identify as Republican.

And the "real insurrection" comes if they start trying to ban and/or confiscate weapons in large quantities, or start trying to ban certain types of speech via "red flag" type provisions which in turn authorize weapon confiscations. Existing Red Flag laws have agitated the Boogs plenty already, and I cannot imagine the Democrats aren't going to race towards giving that trough a lot more action in the coming months. "Because right wing extremists have proven how dangerous they are" by what happened on January 6th.

Don't poke the bear.

[DonaldD]

Republicans define themselves.

According to a next day YouGov poll, 45% of Republicans supported the attack on the Capitol.  Get your mind around that - almost half of Republicans supported a violent attack on the federal government.

Sure, pretend the violent rioters were anti-fascists, then when that falls through, blame it on boogaloo boys, but never on the people wearing Trump hats and waving Trump flags.

[TheDeamon]

Sure, pretend the violent rioters were anti-fascists, then when that falls through, blame it on boogaloo boys, but never on the people wearing Trump hats and waving Trump flags.

You assume:
1) Those people identify as Republican in the first place. (Not true for many, although most probably do/did)
2) That among the rabid Trump supporters present at that event, their identification with the Republican Party goes beyond their loyalty to Trump. IE they're "Republicans" because Trump is.

I guess we could draw a venn diagram to see how those various groups overlap. There is obviously going to be a LOT of overlap. But you're forgetting about the Republicans who identify as Republican without regard to anything involving Donald Trump. After Donald Trump has exited the stage, or gone off to from a third party, those people will still be calling themselves Republicans. Those are the "real" Republicans.

[TheDeamon]

Sure, pretend the violent rioters were anti-fascists, then when that falls through, blame it on boogaloo boys, but never on the people wearing Trump hats and waving Trump flags.

Any armed "protester" that attended event was very likely to either be vaguely AntiFa/BLM aligned, or a BoogBoi of some flavor, and there are thousands of different flavors of the Boogaloo, much like AntiFa "they're an idea" only their roots don't go back to the Communist Party of 1930's Germany.

[DonaldD]

Ah yes, not a true Scotsman.

But 45% of self-identified Republicans supported the attack.  If you discount those, then less than 15% of the country validly self-identify as Republican.  You sure you want to go there?

[DonaldD]

"likely to either be vaguely AntiFa/BLM".

Wow.  Just wow. 

[TheDeamon]

"likely to either be vaguely AntiFa/BLM".

Wow.  Just wow.

Guess I should I flipped the order to appease your sensabilities on the matter. It went from least likely to most likely in that particular case. While you seem to be assuming most likely to least likely.

Also note that you're dealing with the specific subset of "armed protester" we know that Armed leftist groups exist, CHAZ/CHOP, and a few other shootings at "mostly peaceful protests" have demonstrated that much.

[NobleHunter]

How likely do you think BLM/Antifa is?

Shouldn't you have also mentioned a Russian or Chinese plant, just for completeness' sake?

[DonaldD]

Or maybe it could have been those thousands of angry Trump fans who were so convinced by Republican propaganda that the election had been stolen that they travelled from around the country, and who were then whipped into a frenzy by Trump who told them to head on down to the Capitol and, you know, you do you.

It's as if there's some kind of conspiracy switch that flipped inside your head leaving you susceptible to believing any crap that supports your own worldview, regardless of the likelihood.  45% of Republicans.  Protesters interviewed immediately after attacking the Capitol, explaining why they did it.  But nope, we shouldn't believe those Republicans it must be ... the leftist bogeyman.

[Fenring]

So if a corporations reckless disregard for the truth was a major contributor in this insurrection, can there be any criminal liability for those who were, originating and disseminating the lies and falsehoods?

Good question. You know, there used to be much stricter regulation on what news agencies could say and do. This was repealed and largely scrapped, I think, because of the advent of alternative news (e.g. CNN) and the lack of a tight control on who a 'news source' is. With the internet that obviously exploded outright. I would not at all be opposed to something like what you suggest, so long as there was no trace of thought control involved; i.e. that "truth" wasn't just a catchphrase for towing an establishment line. Governing something like that would require some serious checks and balances, along with some kind of, I dunno, bipartisan committee overseeing it? And of course the danger of regulatory capture is an ever-present danger. I would for now be satisfied for it to be quite difficult to obtain a "news organization" license (i.e. that that title would be reserved for groups adhering to certain rules) and that this would be revocable in the case of infractions, such as spin doctoring, omitting key facts without retraction, or deliberately misleading due to how things are ordered. Frankly I don't even think it would be that hard to tell in a common sense way whether a piece is fairly sticking to facts versus editorializing. Maybe there is room for totally advanced technique in propaganda even within tight boundaries, but overall it doesn't take a genius to watch something on either FOX or CNN alternatively and see immediately that they are selling a product. It is so obvious that it's painful for me to even watch it for 2 minutes, so naturally I cringe at the barber when these things are on. Funny thing is, although obvious ratings presumably drove the current models, on some level I suspect most people would actually be happier with real news networks that have no political angle, are not tied to partisan shareholders, and which have no unofficial relationship with political parties. I can imagine a few ways to divorce those two areas, but that's another post.

[Aris Katsaris]

Also note that you're dealing with the specific subset of "armed protester" we know that Armed leftist groups exist, CHAZ/CHOP, and a few other shootings at "mostly peaceful protests" have demonstrated that much.

This wasn't a leftist protest, you bloody idiot. IT WAS A *censored*ING TRUMPIST EVENT.

[cherrypoptart]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2021/01/07/rules-for-rioters-it-doesnt-matter-what-you-do-its-who-you-are-when-youre-doing-it/

Rush as usual made some good points.

Where are the Democrats and leftists at on defunding the police now?

Does that include the Capitol Police?

Also, now apparently the press has found the words violent rioters in their dictionaries when apparently those words were unknown to them previously.

Why weren't these protestors given the same "room to destroy" as the others?

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.

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?

But it is nice to see the Democrats are finally onboard with having some law and order, well at least until the next bout of their own politically correct riot inciting resumes.

[Aris Katsaris]

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2021/01/07/rules-for-rioters-it-doesnt-matter-what-you-do-its-who-you-are-when-youre-doing-it/

Rush as usual made some good points.

Where are the Democrats and leftists at on defunding the police now?

I've seen many leftist say that this actually confirms their desire to defund the police, as it proved incompetent and useless, since the funded police proved itself to handle white far-right thugs far differently than it handles black people.

I don't agree with them, mind you. I've considered "Defund the police" a very stupid message from the start. It should have been "Reform the police".

Also, now apparently the press has found the words violent rioters in their dictionaries when apparently those words were unknown to them previously.

Why weren't these protestors given the same "room to destroy" as the others?

These people didn't try to destroy a building or the statues of the people who enslaved them, they tried to destroy DEMOCRACY IN YOUR *censored*ING NATION. THEY TRIED TO INVALIDATE A FAIR AND FREE ELECTION BY FORCE OF VIOLENCE.

One after another the Trump voters here are exposing themselves a bunch of weaselly whataboutists, and enablers of a wannabe dictator.

*censored* you. Condemn Trump's lies that led to this. OR SHUT THE *censored* UP AND WEASEL BACK INTO YOUR HOLE INSTEAD.

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?

I still don't give a *censored* about property damage in the Capitol.

I care very much about democracy. I care very much about the Confederate flag being waved in your Capitol.

But I'm sure you'd be just fine if e.g. Barack Obama had unleashed let's say an islamist mob into the Capitol that waved, let's say, an ISIS flag, and then he put forward a message saying that he loves them and they're special people, right? You wouldn't have seen that as validating the worst fears of every idiot about him, would you, if the ISIS flag had flown in the Capitol? And yet you saw the Confederate flag flown, and you didn't give a *censored*.

Go *censored* yourself, whataboutist.

You still haven't condemned Trump's lies that led to the vileness of trying to overthrow your democracy.

But it is nice to see the Democrats are finally onboard with having some law and order, well at least until the next bout of their own politically correct riot inciting resumes.

Go *censored* yourself, fascist *censored*.

Yes, trying to knock down Confederate statues is not the same as trying to knock down democracy.

Only fascists can't see the difference.

I've not seen a single liberal or Democrat care about the broken windows. We've cared about the attempted coup.

Go *censored* yourself again.

[cherrypoptart]

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? Heh. This is all just the turning of the wheel, what went around is coming back around. The Democrats took it to the streets and now the other side is doing the same thing. It's amazing the difference in treatment received. It all depends on which side everyone is on. What was praised before is now the end of the world. And what was the end of the world before is now on the receiving end of an overreaction. It doesn't seem like it's been that long since we had the BLM riots including the assault on a federal courthouse. But to Democrats and the press the way they are going on about this riot as if the other ones didn't just happen is totally bizarre, as if the BLM riots occurred in a long forgotten age and are now nothing more than myth or legend.

“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. ... There are neither beginnings nor endings to the Wheel of Time. But it was a beginning.”

[Aris Katsaris]

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.

*censored* you again, fascist pusher of Trump's lies.

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.

But sure, blame the overthrow of democracy on the people who dared *gasp* investigate the ties between a fascist enemy power (Russia) and the fascist politician they did their utmost to support in America.

Strange how when Trump argued for continued "investigation" into election fraud, you claimed this was fine and it would legitimize Biden's presidency. But somehow when the Democrats investigated Trump that was, oh, so bad and evil.

*censored* YOU LIAR.

You want people to KEEP investigating supposed fraud, no matter how many investigations have disproven it, but again you doublethinker you dare bash Democrats for even doing *one* investigation into an actually proven crime by Russia.

*censored* YOU HYPOCRITE.

[cherrypoptart]

Yeah, yeah.

And another thing.

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?

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.

Are they trying to dox the police officer who shot an unarmed woman? Was he aiming for her specifically? Or did he just shoot into the crowd?
So is the media going to go after him and his entire family like they did in the Floyd case? Are they even going to question anything? They are doing more to destroy a young Puerto Rican lady who falsely accused a young black man of stealing her phone than they are doing after an unarmed rioter is shot down in cold blood.

Or was killing her like that okay?