Now you've done it

[TheDrake]

Republicans have gone so far that corporations are going to stop donating to their PACs.

JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup announced temporary suspensions of political donations following last week’s invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, is pausing political action committee contributions for Republicans and Democrats for “at least” the next six months, spokesman Steve O’Halloran said. The New York-based bank will use that time to consider changes to its political-donation strategies.

“The country is facing unprecedented health, economic and political crises,” said JPMorgan’s head of corporate responsibility Peter Scher. “The focus of business leaders, political leaders, civic leaders right now should be on governing and getting help to those who desperately need it most right now. There will be plenty of time for campaigning later.”

Spurred on by Wednesday’s riot, which resulted in at least five deaths, corporations including Marriott International and Blue Cross Blue Shield have said they would stop giving money to Republican lawmakers who backed efforts to disrupt the confirmation of President-elect Joe Biden’s victory over President Donald Trump. But most banks, rather than targeting and potentially alienating members of the Republican Party, have instead decided to halt donations to all lawmakers for now.

That's not trader joe's and chik-fil-a. Those are some serious players who, at least for now, are over it.

Credit card issuer American Express said Monday its PAC will no longer support candidates who tried to “subvert the presidential election results and disrupt the peaceful transition of power.” In the past, the PAC had contributed to 22 of the 139 House members who objected to the election results, and none of the senators, the firm said.

[msquared]

But the First Amendment? How dare the Dems take away their first Amendment rights?

[TheDrake]

Trump National in Bedminster has been stripped of the US PGA Championship in 2022 as its organisers felt using the course as host would be "detrimental".

The PGA of America voted to terminate the agreement on Sunday.

US President Donald Trump, who owns the course, has been accused by Democrats and some Republicans of encouraging last Wednesday's riot in Congress.

A representative for the Trump Organization said they were "incredibly disappointed" with the decision.

The PGA of America is now searching for a replacement host for one of the game's biggest four men's individual events.

"We have had a beautiful partnership with the PGA of America," Trump's representative added.

"This is a breach of a binding contract and they have no right to terminate the agreement."

[TheDrake]

Breitbart commenters react.

Trump voters ARE_ARMED

Conservative Whites will be treated like the Jews in 1930’s Germany.

This is the warm up for buying guns and ammo
its going to happen by the end of the month

[TheDrake]

[quoteParler, a social networking service favored by many supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump, sued Amazon.com Inc on Monday, accusing its Web hosting service of violating antitrust law by suspending its account.
In a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court in Seattle, Parler said Amazon's decision to effectively shutter its account was "apparently motivated by political animus" and "apparently designed to reduce competition in the microblogging services market to the benefit of Twitter."

Parler is seeking a court order requiring Amazon to reinstate its account, and blocking it from suspending services it had contracted for. It is also seeking unspecified triple damages.

Amazon did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Parler was not immediately available for comment.[/quote]

HA HA HA HA

[fizz]

Mandatory xkcd free speech comic:
https://xkcd.com/1357/

[rightleft22]

Breitbart commenters react.

Trump voters ARE_ARMED

Conservative Whites will be treated like the Jews in 1930’s Germany.

This is the warm up for buying guns and ammo
its going to happen by the end of the month

Anyone know what percentage of Trump Conservatives believe this conspiracy?

[TheDeamon]

Breitbart commenters react.

Trump voters ARE_ARMED

Conservative Whites will be treated like the Jews in 1930’s Germany.

This is the warm up for buying guns and ammo
its going to happen by the end of the month

Anyone know what percentage of Trump Conservatives believe this conspiracy?

Warmup for buying guns and ammo? That's been ongoing since June, some associates of mine who are big time gun people have been complaining about prices for ammo, or even just the primers for reloading, since then. Prices are continuing to go up, and that's a strong indicator for what's going on in that market.

Don't know about any conspiracy, but there was "a poll" saying something like 70% of Republicans and 40% of Democrats believe Civil War is "imminent" so we'll see.

As I've been trying to say, the Democrat response to what's going on could push things over the edge. They need to be backing down on the rhetoric and actions against the right, not ramping things up. They're winding things up, not calming them down.

Yes Trump wasn't helping things, but he wasn't a credible threat in any meaningful way which couldn't be handled by a competent security plan. The Federal Government institutions won't support a coup...

[TheDeamon]

Republicans have gone so far that corporations are going to stop donating to their PACs.

JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup announced temporary suspensions of political donations following last week’s invasion of the U.S. Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

Not shocking, the overwhelming majority of employees in those companies have been Democratic Donors by a extremely lopsided margin for years now.

And it's pretty meaningless right now, coming right off a federal election cycle anyway, nobody is going to be looking for campaign finance support until the end of the year. And as pointed out here:

Credit card issuer American Express said Monday its PAC will no longer support candidates who tried to “subvert the presidential election results and disrupt the peaceful transition of power.” In the past, the PAC had contributed to 22 of the 139 House members who objected to the election results, and none of the senators, the firm said.

It isn't like Ted Cruz is going to miss their financial support, they've never supported him in the first place. Ditto for 117 of the 139 Republicans in the House that are "defunded" by their decision.

[Aris Katsaris]

As I've been trying to say, the Democrat response to what's going on could push things over the edge. They need to be backing down on the rhetoric and actions against the right, not ramping things up. They're winding things up, not calming them down.

Congrats, after Trump accused all the Democrats and half the Republicans of being traitors and stealing the election from the American People -- you're still accusing the Democrats and saying they'll be to blame if they don't turn the other cheek after his coup attempt. Gee "Trump didn't help", am surprised you found the courage to say as much against him.

I wonder what you want them to do. Well Trump is accusing them of stealing *every* state, the Democrats are saying they didn't steal *any* state, perhaps a good compromise would be if the Democrats said they stole half the states?

The Trumpists are still screaming about a stolen election. If you don't want a civil war between the right and the left, then I suggest you strongly suggest to the Republican party to join en masse into the impeachment of Trump, and to then cut off the Trumpist fanatics from its midst like a gangrene-infected leg. And then to spend some billions, perhaps trillions, in Republican-funded ads the rest of the years, explaining to their voters why Trump was a lying liar who lies, and that the election wasn't stolen.

But you can't even say the words "Trump lied." when I asked you to do so.

So civil war you shall have. And you'll be to blame. Yes, you personally TheDeamon.

[TheDeamon]

Congrats, after Trump accused all the Democrats and half the Republicans of being traitors and stealing the election from the American People -- you're still accusing the Democrats and saying they'll be to blame if they don't turn the other cheek after his coup attempt. Gee "Trump didn't help", am surprised you found the courage to say as much against him.

A good recent example would be the handling of the BLM riots, you use existing laws to the extent relevant, and in some cases even show a bit of lenience and toleration of their activities. What you don't do, and I fully expect the Democrats are going to start doing on January 20th, is start enacting new laws targeting the specific activities of the aggrieved group and levy harsher criminal and civil penalties against them. They're acting out of fear right now, most conservatives/Republicans right now remain on the side lines because they know it's fear and not entirely rational.

But once new laws get enacted? That not fear, that's reality, they'll start to respond accordingly.

And as Democrats have a history of pushing any political advantage to the maximum extent they can, that's what they're very like to set off.

I wonder what you want them to do. Well Trump is accusing them of stealing *every* state, the Democrats are saying they didn't steal *any* state, perhaps a good compromise would be if the Democrats said they stole half the states?

I want them to use existing laws, and existing interpretations of laws. And do nothing beyond that. If they make new laws, or "creatively interpret" existing laws, they're asking for a civil war at that point.

The Trumpists are still screaming about a stolen election. If you don't want a civil war between the right and the left, then I suggest you strongly suggest to the Republican party to join en masse into the impeachment of Trump, and to then cut off the Trumpist fanatics from its midst like a gangrene-infected leg. And then to spend some billions, perhaps trillions, in Republican-funded ads the rest of the years, explaining to their voters why Trump was a lying liar who lies, and that the election wasn't stolen.

Irrelevant, for most of those "trumpists" at this point, the election is backstory at this stage. It isn't about the election going forward, it is about how the Democrats and the Biden Administration respond to what happened. If they make new law, we're in deep &@($.

So civil war you shall have. And you'll be to blame. Yes, you personally TheDeamon.

And I grieve for the country because of it.

[DonaldD]

A good recent example would be the handling of the BLM riots

And this is what comes from living in an echo chamber - and only leaving it to ignore what you hear outside.  The BLM protests involved tens of millions of people protesting, many angrily, but for the most part peacefully. They were the largest protests in US history.

There were, as there always are for large protests, violent hangers on, and people taking advantage to create havoc.  But characterizing the BLM protests as riots says more about your state of mind than it does of the protests.

[Wayward Son]

The problem, TheDeamon, is that Trumpists and the Radical Right lie continuously.  So even if Democrats don't make new laws combating insurrection, the Trumpists will still say they did and rile up their base.

Don't tell Democrats what to do.  We have a moderate President.  (And don't tell the Trumpist lie that he's a radical Leftist, please!)  We will most likely have a moderate response.

Start telling the Republicans and Conservatives what to do to calm their Trumpists allies.  THAT is where the problem lies.

If the Republicans and Conservatives can't control them, there is nothing the Democrats can do.

[TheDeamon]

A good recent example would be the handling of the BLM riots

And this is what comes from living in an echo chamber - and only leaving it to ignore what you hear outside.  The BLM protests involved tens of millions of people protesting, many angrily, but for the most part peacefully. They were the largest protests in US history.

I think you might want to look at "confirmation bias" and "projection" a bit. When I said BLM Riots, I meant the riots. 

I doubt even WmLambert would assert that all of the BLM protests were riots.

There were, as there always are for large protests, violent hangers on, and people taking advantage to create havoc.  But characterizing the BLM protests as riots says more about your state of mind than it does of the protests.

Tell me something I didn't already know, please?

Quit trying to read between the lines on a statement that has no between the line context to pounce on to score the quick win with?

[Seriati]

Gee I hoped now that the veneer has come off and the Dems were going full on fascist that I'd come here and see some humility, but nope.  Lots of crazy doubling down.

No one agreed with the "storming of the capital," not even Trump.  But AOC is lying out her rear when she says things like half of Congress's lives were at risk.  What you saw was a bunch of people who had no idea what to do once they got inside.  They started taking selfies and acting like morons, not really looting, pillaging and murdering.  They didn't fortify the capital and declare it a free zone.

And now what you have is a mostly fascist "reaction" to suppress millions that weren't there and who knows how many that were there and never "stormed the capital."  And you come on here and start lying again about the "mostly" peaceful protests of the left versus this "incredibly dangerous" protest of the "Trumpers."  Cheering on the suppression of the first amendment rights of speech and association.  Those are not are not optional rights. 

I guess I was wrong about what this site was about.  Irrationality has prevailed.  Welcome to the dark ages.

[DonaldD]

Fascist... I can't remember the last time Democratic party supporters threatened perceived apostates and their children with murder ... maybe I missed that bit.

Phillymag.com: Attacked by Trump and targeted by his base, embattled Republican Al Schmidt explains why this term will be his last.

[Seriati]

Fascists.  And useful idiots.

[TheDeamon]

BLM in Portland loved to threaten people. And prominent Conservatives have been contending with death threats for years now.

Heck, a high profile and black Trump supporter "mysteriously" died during the George Floyd rioting as I recall. Which isn't to mention the two other Trump supporters gunned down by supporters of BLM. (AntiFa status unknown)

Then of course there are the other MAGA's who were badly beaten, and not just restricted to adults, children were on the menu for the anti-Trumpers as well.

Both sides have horrible aligned with them. What's new?

[Aris Katsaris]

What's new, TheDeamon, is that Trump tried to do a coup, by asking his vice president to throw out the electoral votes and appoint him President. Then when Pence refused to join in Trump's coup, Trump called him a coward, accused the majority of the Congress of effectively all being collaborators in the 'steal', and set his mob loose after riling them up. Part of the mob (not coincidentally) was chanting "Hang Mike Pence", and (again not coincidentally) Lin Wood posted a Parler message about how Pence should be the first to face the firing squad.

That's what's new.

And as you can see with Seriati, the fascist monsters are unrepentant, and again do a full reversal of reality, always blaming their opponents for their own sins.

I suggest that you disassociate yourself from such monsters, if you actually have a conscience somewhere in there. I know Seriati doesn't.

[msquared]

How about this to ease tensions on both side. Trump tells the truth that while there might have been some small scale local fraud, the election as a whole was honest and fair and that he lost. He should say there is no evidence of wide spread fraud.  And he should concede that he lost the election.  He should tell his followers that he lost fair and square (bonus points for saying that he has been fleecing them for the 2 months since the election but I think that would be asking too much).

Once he has done that, and told his supporters to stand down (not stand by) maybe we can start lowering tensions.

How does that sound?  He makes the first move in doing what you ask.  For the good of the country.

[DonaldD]

Anybody who pretends to believe that the recent threats to bureaucrats, politicians and election workers of all political stripes, and to their families - all for simply refusing not to do their jobs - are not unprecedented is simply being, to be polite, disingenuous.  We have at least one member of congress who has admitted to refusing to certify the EC votes exactly because they feared for their family's life.

At some point, one must look at one's argument and admit - that's wrong.

[DonaldD]

Fascists.  And useful idiots.

OK, you've taken the first step - admitting you have a problem.

[TheDeamon]

What's new, TheDeamon, is that Trump tried to do a coup, by asking his vice president to throw out the electoral votes and appoint him President. Then when Pence refused to join in Trump's coup, Trump called him a coward, accused the majority of the Congress of effectively all being collaborators in the 'steal', and set his mob loose after riling them up. Part of the mob (not coincidentally) was chanting "Hang Mike Pence", and (again not coincidentally) Lin Wood posted a Parler message about how Pence should be the first to face the firing squad.

Trump's a Narcissist with Authoritarian tendencies. But that doesn't make him a fascist. It makes him an narcissitic authoritarian.

That's what's new.

It's actually kind of old news, considering people have been sweating over the matter of Trump being a sore loser for the past 4+ years.. Often while being sore losers themselves.

And as you can see with Seriati, the fascist monsters are unrepentant, and again do a full reversal of reality, always blaming their opponents for their own sins.

We shall see who the real fascists are. But I'm putting decent odds on their not identifying as a political conservative, or Republican. And that they also don't view themselves as being fascists. Even as they go about behaving a lot like a fascist does, or any other flavor of totalitarian (which is specific flavor of Authoritarian) does.

I suggest that you disassociate yourself from such monsters, if you actually have a conscience somewhere in there. I know Seriati doesn't.

Once more, I think you might want to take a long hard look at the man in mirror. There is major conflict in the offing, and the battle lines aren't being drawn along the axis you seem to think they are.

Trump was a symptom, not the actual issue, the sooner people like you wake up to that fact, the better off the country will be. But Orange Man Bad has you running around with blinders on.

[DonaldD]

No one agreed with the "storming of the capital," not even Trump. 

Maybe you believe that because you haven't yet heard of Trump's reaction to the attack.  Here's what Senator Ben Sasse said in an interview with conservative radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt:

As this was unfolding on television, Donald Trump was walking around the White House confused about why other people on his team weren’t as excited as he was as you had rioters pushing against Capitol Police trying to get into the building.

<cross talk>

That was happening. He was delighted.

I guess you could argue that being "delighted" with the Capitol being stormed is not the same as "agreeing" with it being stormed, but you won't get many takers.

[kidv]

Gee I hoped now that the veneer has come off and the Dems were going full on fascist that I'd come here and see some humility, but nope.  Lots of crazy doubling down.

No one agreed with the "storming of the capital," not even Trump.  But AOC is lying out her rear when she says things like half of Congress's lives were at risk.  What you saw was a bunch of people who had no idea what to do once they got inside.  They started taking selfies and acting like morons, not really looting, pillaging and murdering.  They didn't fortify the capital and declare it a free zone.

And now what you have is a mostly fascist "reaction" to suppress millions that weren't there and who knows how many that were there and never "stormed the capital."  And you come on here and start lying again about the "mostly" peaceful protests of the left versus this "incredibly dangerous" protest of the "Trumpers."  Cheering on the suppression of the first amendment rights of speech and association.  Those are not are not optional rights. 

I guess I was wrong about what this site was about.  Irrationality has prevailed.  Welcome to the dark ages.

There were undoubtedly a lot of useful idiots.

But-

Informal Poll:
What was this guy https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/rioter-known-as-zip-tie-guy-arrested-by-fbi-for-breaching-capitol/ planning to do with his taser and plastic handcuffs in the Senate chamber?

What were the people who were chanting "Hang Mike Pence" planning to do when they got to Senate chamber where Mike Pence was refusing to not count electoral votes?
Please listen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y32EF-Wk7Q

What was this retired Lt. Colonel and AFA graduate wearing tactical gear and holding flexcuffs on the Senate floor planning to do with those flexcuffs if he found Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, or those "fraudulent" electoral ballots on the Senate floor?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/09/insurrectionist-zip-tie-guy-identified-as-retired-air-force-lieutenant-colonel/
   Bonus question: How did Lt. Colonel (ret.) ziptie guy find Nancy Pelosi's office directly after entering the Capitol Building. and what would he have done if he found Nancy Pelosi in her office?
https://www.tmz.com/2021/01/11/ex-wife-turned-in-retired-lieutenant-colonel-with-zip-ties-at-capitol/

What were they planning to do with the gallows outside the Capitol?

Who is this line of disciplined men dressed in matching body armor, ascending through the crowd to the capitol immediately before the breach, and seemingly part of a group including the ziptie colonel, planning to do when they entered the capitol? https://twitter.com/i/status/1348115530654347266

Why did this guy in matching body armor and helmet also have flexcuffs in his plate carrier, and what was he planning to do with them when he entered the capitol?
https://mobile.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347996374252609539/photo/1

Bonus:  Watch this 2 minute video of a crowd attacking a doorway full of police officers, including dragging a police officer down a stairway and beating him with a flag. https://twitter.com/johnkruzel/status/1348357405671886851

Give an opinion on violence.

Final question:

Pretend you're a congressional representative. [Pretend someone stole your shoes?]
Pretend that a police officer with "shoot to kill" rules of engagement [surmised by actions] at the entrance of the barricaded speaker's lobby has killed an insurgent trying to cross that line.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MakeMyCoffin/comments/ksdftw/mmc_after_i_try_to_enter_the_capitol_nsfw/
What is your opinion on the risk exposure of all members of congress in retrospective?


Opinion:  Parler most likely knows the answers to all these questions.
Many people still do approve of the actions and intentions represented.

[DonaldD]

Many people still do approve of the actions and intentions represented.

And it bears repeating - in a survey the following day, 45% of self described Republicans approved of the attack on the Capitol.  Granted, maybe it was not representative (19/20, margin of error, etc) but this should be terrifying to the country.

[Fenring]

Fascist... I can't remember the last time Democratic party supporters threatened perceived apostates and their children with murder ... maybe I missed that bit.

Phillymag.com: Attacked by Trump and targeted by his base, embattled Republican Al Schmidt explains why this term will be his last.

You might want to just consider that America has a rage problem in general. The amount of people who want to kill each other seems quite high, given remarks made on social media and so forth. At this point you could take a fortune cookie fortune and throw it in the air, and have the Chinese restaurant it came from receive death threats. It's deeply troubling to read a headline like the one you posted, but then again there is so much deeply troubling lately. And all of it is magnified by social media and the lack of a barrier between people and their targets. Mix all that up with a deficient health care system (specifically, mental health) and you have some % of the population on both sides sitting around stewing and bitter, wanting to lash into someone. Because of the technological megaphone no longer do they have to sit around and know their voices are irrelevant; now they can be very relevant. We have yet to get over that hump where every nut is emboldened and made powerful. There are other elements, and you are obviously right in that this particular instance doesn't have a reasonable excuse. My point is that if there are real problems in America right now, with dislike of each other growing and the gap widening, maybe scoring one more victory against the bad guys on the other side isn't the best path forward.

[DonaldD]

Both sides-ism at its finest.

Are Democratic supporters threatening the lives of political opponents and their children?  Are Democratic senators or congress people changing votes because they fear for their families' lives?

But regardless - my post was meant as a refutation to the claim that Democrats specifically are acting as fascists.  Which is especially rich given that White supremacists, nazis, and confederate flag waving nut jobs attacking the transfer of power support one particular party, and it isn't the Democrats.  I'm not sure why you didn't dispute Seriati's claim, given your unbounded reasonableness...

[TheDeamon]

Are Democratic supporters threatening the lives of political opponents and their children?  Are Democratic senators or congress people changing votes because they fear for their families' lives?

Democrat Congresspersons advocated for people to confront Republican Legislators "anywhere they can find them" within the past 18 months, and it might still be more recent than that.

Democrat activists also are the ones who like to hold protest "rallies" on the doorstep of politicians. Republican and Democrat alike even during the past 6 months. Because BLM, given it's recent record, just gives people warm fuzzies when the Seattle chapter of it turns up on the mayor's doorstep, or the doorstep of the chief of police.

But regardless - my post was meant as a refutation to the claim that Democrats specifically are acting as fascists.  Which is especially rich given that White supremacists, nazis, and confederate flag waving nut jobs attacking the transfer of power support one particular party, and it isn't the Democrats.  I'm not sure why you didn't dispute Seriati's claim, given your unbounded reasonableness...

And we've had this discussion in the past. White Supremacists and the Neo-Nazis exist in a weird political space within the United States, they get identified as being part of the "political right" because certain agenda items play well to their ideology. (Mostly free speech, freedom of association, right to bear arms, and pride in America's past--although the differ wildly on which parts of the past they take pride in, and often times God as well, although their God certainly isn't the one most mainstream Christian faiths recognize today in the US, even among the more conservative faiths. Also remember that many of the abolitionists of the 19th Century were abolitionists because their Christian faith found the practice abhorrent, and they were the majority in the US even then.)

[TheDeamon]

Also honorable mention to AOC on December 2nd, 2020. I'm not using the lead, as I'm applying it to a different topic but...

https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1334184644707758080?lang=en

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore.

It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands. (2/3)

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable.

Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows.

To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.(3/3)

Or Maxine Waters in June 2018, which makes the statement 2.5 years old, not the 1.5 I estimated:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html

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.” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building

So evidently in the world of Democrats, it is okay to run around intimidating government officials when they're "off the clock" and going about their personal lives. But heaven forbid you threaten their comfort zone where Congress is concerned. Other Federal Officials? Knock yourselves out, after all, they had no problem with the Federal Buildings in Portland being shut down for months while BLM/AntiFa waged their assault on those locations. And as Maxine Waters demonstrated, they had no issue with intimidation of Executive Branch officials.

But evidently Congressional Officials, or more specifically Democrats, because remember, someone tried to kill members of the Republican Delegation at a baseball practice session. That's where they draw the line. Making the Democratic delegation feel threatened on Capital Hill is now sedition and insurrection.

Hypocrites.

[cherrypoptart]

Now I disagree with illegal protests, especially violent ones in which people get hurt and property gets damaged, and that should be very clear with no buts about it.

And of course here it comes.

But...

The Democrats proved with this last election and their antics for the past four years leading up to it that violent illegal protests work. Undermining the integrity of the democratic process and refusing to accept the legitimacy of the election and the President works. Everything they say right now is wrong to do, they just did, and it worked flawlessly. After all, they just won didn't they?

The riots, the arson, attacking federal buildings, attacking people, shutting down highways, pulling people out of vehicles and beating them senseless, and all of the rest of it. When you get right down to it, was it effective? Did it result in final and total victory? Well the Democrats now control Congress and the Presidency so yes, it was effective. The results speak for themselves.

But now all of a sudden those types of violent and illegal protests will NOT be tolerated. Not when it's from the other side of course. Just like after a violent communist revolution all future revolutions will be violently and mercilessly squashed. No mercy and no quarter shown to counter-revolutionaries. Kind of hard to put that genie back in the bottle though.

The Democrats with this election have shown what it takes to win in America. Riots in the streets. Threats and intimidation against political opponents. Constant doxxing of anyone who disagrees and every effort made to get them fired from whatever employment they enjoy at the moment. Even without massive voter fraud it's still clear that the election was stolen in all the ways the Democrats will work to make sure it isn't stolen back the next time, by preventing the same type of violent protests and media manipulation, threats and intimidation and execution of persecution policies that helped them steal their "legitimate" victory at the ballot box, "fair and square".

Democrats fully realize that the next election will be won or lost by them based mostly on whether or not they prevent their political opponents from using the same tactics they just finished using. Of course the first move out of the playbook is to brazenly assert and make the case for why when the other side does the same types of things, it's completely different.

Now again, that's not saying I agree with such tactics. I don't. I'm just making an observation and echoing the assertion: Hypocrites.

[Aris Katsaris]

The summer riots and the stupid 'Defund the police' message harmed the Democrats in the elections, you bloody numbskull. Didn't you notice the congressional election results? Didn't you hear the Biden leak where he was telling people exactly that?

The bothsidism of 'illegal protests' uninterests me, you guys ALL want us to forget that the 'illegal protests' in one side were protesting the murder of George Floyd, and the 'illegal protests' on the other side were in support of Trump's attempt of an illegal coup and instigated by his repeated lies and his desire to be president no matter what the election results were.

Not to mention that one side was throwing down Confederate statues, the other side was waving a Confederate flags and pulling down the American flag to replace it with a Trump flag.

See, it's really not the same level of badness to protest against murder and oppression and to try to do a coup.

Even without massive voter fraud it's still clear that the election was stolen"

That's so cute and precious! See, in the past you'd already said you believed there wasn't sufficient fraud to change the results... but Trump in his speech claimed that the election was stolen, and that *everyone* knew it (so if you deny a stolen election, you're a deliberate accomplice of the theft) , so by jolly you need find a way to conform yourself to Trump's claim, and thus you found another reason to proclaim the election "stolen", regardless of fraud!

He's not just your leader, he's your God, whose words you must never question, see.

In the meantime, in the real world, the only one who tried to steal the election was Donald Trump. And you actually were an accomplice in that attempted theft.

You "forgot" about all your previous claims anout how Trump's accusations would supposedly help legitimize Biden's win, did you? Or else they were bull*censored* excuses from the start, as I thought.

[kidv]

Of course the above posted facts and statements are accurate.  Protesting is of course intended to make people uncomfortable and make people listen to what they might not be exposed to or do not want to hear.  Protesting is very rude.

For equivalence sake, please provide any examples of people committing criminal activity in protests and explicitly not being charged with it.
 
What would be appropriate? Let's say violence, destruction of property, violation of a secured area [i.e. trespassing into the capitol, an airport, courthouse, etc], assaulting police, murder.

For equivalence, let's try to distinguish potential federal crimes vs. local [state or city level] crimes.

My thesis would be that except for people not able to be identified, identifiable acts listed above customarily result in criminal charges.  Crimes are not excused.  Violence and destruction of property are not tolerated; these crimes as part of protests [by definition, riotous activity] are investigated and charged with crimes. [Just like we discover that voter fraud is continuously investigated and criminally charged when found, which is how know that it is not a serious problem.]

I would expect that local crimes may have a greater amount of people "getting away with it" than federal crimes, because of potentially a lack of will or resources on a local level.

I would also hypothesize no sane side consciously approves of violence, destruction, and death in the light of day.  [There are of course a lot of people who apparently like to engage in violence and destruction.]

I'd also be interested in any mass events specifically directed by leaders or a particular group, which resulted in a riot [violence or destruction of property], where those identifiable leaders were not charged with incitement.

My thesis is that calling for Trump's responsibility for 1/6/21 is not out of the ordinary for any similar event and outcome.


Aside from that, clearly many people are treating 1/6/21 as something significantly different than "what the Democrats do," or "what the Republicans do," or even "what the democrats and republicans do when actually they all act and say exactly the same things."

Are there things about 1/6/21 that are significantly different than protesting the ACA, police brutality, or Al Gore trying to steal the presidency?
Why are Kevin McCarthy, Ben Sasse, Lindsay Graham, Mike Pence, or Pat Toomey saying that Donald Trump has gone too far or that he should be impeached?

Some thoughts:

1) The capitol is indeed different than any other protest area, protected by its own police force, a federally defined secure area which is the actual seat of American democracy?
2) Are there any other instances of elected leaders directing a mass of people to emotional action based on defined falsehoods?
3) Has any elected official in America ever directed a group of people to interfere with an election? i.e. is there ever an example of a mob being directed to    destroy election results, swarm or interfere with the counting of ballots, or intimidate election officials or elected officials from declaring a set of election results?
4) Has an elected official in America ever directed a group of people towards physical action against other elected officials?

5) Counting and declaring the results of the federal election is a constitutional activity different than any other in American democracy, and attempting to interfere with that is fundamentally different from other protests?

6) Have any protests led by an elected officials carried threats of assassination or hogtying elected officials in advance of the event? https://imgur.com/SXL2he5

Does this accurately represent why Republican leaders would reject Trump and his activities related to 1/6/21?

[TheDeamon]

For equivalence sake, please provide any examples of people committing criminal activity in protests and explicitly not being charged with it.
 
What would be appropriate? Let's say violence, destruction of property, violation of a secured area [i.e. trespassing into the capitol, an airport, courthouse, etc], assaulting police, murder.

Portland, County DA wouldn't prosecute anyone arrested for anything related to the riots unless there was ironclad video evidence and it involved assault on persons not law enforcement.

Vandalism? Not prosecuted.
Arson? Not prosecuted.
So on and so forth.

[TheDeamon]

I'd also be interested in any mass events specifically directed by leaders or a particular group, which resulted in a riot [violence or destruction of property], where those identifiable leaders were not charged with incitement.

My thesis is that calling for Trump's responsibility for 1/6/21 is not out of the ordinary for any similar event and outcome.

The Chicago 7(8) were charged with Conspiracy to instigate a riot and a number of other things in association with rioting that happened in association with the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

They were acquitted, and while I haven't dug into it much myself, I'm being told by someone who should be knowledgeable on the matter that those persons did a LOT more than what Trump did.

[fizz]

I'd also be interested in any mass events specifically directed by leaders or a particular group, which resulted in a riot [violence or destruction of property], where those identifiable leaders were not charged with incitement.

My thesis is that calling for Trump's responsibility for 1/6/21 is not out of the ordinary for any similar event and outcome.

The Chicago 7( were charged with Conspiracy to instigate a riot and a number of other things in association with rioting that happened in association with the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

They were acquitted, and while I haven't dug into it much myself, I'm being told by someone who should be knowledgeable on the matter that those persons did a LOT more than what Trump did.

First of all they *were* charged: kidv talked about being charged, not found guilty: trials can end one way or another for many reasons.
Second, they also *were* found guilty of some of the charges, only absolved for the conspiracy part, and the guilty result was only reversed during appeal due to irregularities during the trial, and before that they did serve jail time.
So, not exactly a great example, even in the constraided criteria of kidv question.
And of course, the guys were not elected officials, and, well, the context was completely different.

[yossarian22c]

For equivalence sake, please provide any examples of people committing criminal activity in protests and explicitly not being charged with it.
 
What would be appropriate? Let's say violence, destruction of property, violation of a secured area [i.e. trespassing into the capitol, an airport, courthouse, etc], assaulting police, murder.

Portland, County DA wouldn't prosecute anyone arrested for anything related to the riots unless there was ironclad video evidence and it involved assault on persons not law enforcement.

Vandalism? Not prosecuted.
Arson? Not prosecuted.
So on and so forth.

So they didn't prosecute any case that wasn't a clear easy win. I also think you overstated what he wouldn't prosecute. This is the quote I found.

Just 11 days into his new term as elected district attorney, Schmidt announced Tuesday that his office will decline to prosecute cases related to the protests that do not involve violence, theft, or deliberate property damage. His office will not pursue charges of disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer, criminal trespass and most charges of rioting. There will be no change in how prosecutors handle cases like arson and assault.

So he wasn't prosecuting cases of people mass arrested for trespassing but still was prosecuting arson, looting, assault, and deliberate property damage.

Trump is on camera telling people they should march to the capital and that they needed to fight to save their country.

I think the DC protesters got off even easier because instead of rounding the rioters up and conducting a mass arrest of everyone inside the capital building they marched them out the doors.

[DonaldD]

No one agreed with the "storming of the capital," not even Trump. 

And then there's this: NY Times:

At the White House, Mr. Trump struck a defiant tone, insisting that he would remain a potent force in American politics as aides and allies abandoned him and his post-presidential prospects turned increasingly bleak. Behind closed doors, he made clear that he would not resign and expressed regret about releasing a video on Thursday committing to a peaceful transition of power and condemning the violence at the Capitol that he had egged on a day before.

[kidv]

For equivalence sake, please provide any examples of people committing criminal activity in protests and explicitly not being charged with it.
 
What would be appropriate? Let's say violence, destruction of property, violation of a secured area [i.e. trespassing into the capitol, an airport, courthouse, etc], assaulting police, murder.

Portland, County DA wouldn't prosecute anyone arrested for anything related to the riots unless there was ironclad video evidence and it involved assault on persons not law enforcement.

Vandalism? Not prosecuted.
Arson? Not prosecuted.
So on and so forth.

I would accept that may be the the case in many localities, that we don't know about.  But investigations do go on as opposed to being excused.  Only local people may know how the prosecutions proceeded.  In Salt Lake City each of the individuals who burned police cars, spraypainted the capitol, and committed visible crimes were identified and publically arrested across the days following the first George Floyd demonstrations. 

We will all note the distinction between Federal response and Local Response.

I believe for this year, the Federal markers would be Portland around the courthouse, and DC?

[kidv]

I'd also be interested in any mass events specifically directed by leaders or a particular group, which resulted in a riot [violence or destruction of property], where those identifiable leaders were not charged with incitement.

My thesis is that calling for Trump's responsibility for 1/6/21 is not out of the ordinary for any similar event and outcome.

The Chicago 7( were charged with Conspiracy to instigate a riot and a number of other things in association with rioting that happened in association with the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

They were acquitted, and while I haven't dug into it much myself, I'm being told by someone who should be knowledgeable on the matter that those persons did a LOT more than what Trump did.

First of all they *were* charged: kidv talked about being charged, not found guilty: trials can end one way or another for many reasons.
Second, they also *were* found guilty of some of the charges, only absolved for the conspiracy part, and the guilty result was only reversed during appeal due to irregularities during the trial, and before that they did serve jail time.
So, not exactly a great example, even in the constraided criteria of kidv question.
And of course, the guys were not elected officials, and, well, the context was completely different.

I assumed you would know of the Chicago 7( as a benchmark.  Watch the movie, it's really good.  (It is a movie, of course, but much of the dialogue is quoted directly from the trial transcripts).

Benchmark:
7 leaders, democrats. socialists, and communists,  told their attendees to march on the Democratic National Convention from a permitted event at a park.  All leaders, even the committed pacifists, were charged and jailed for multiple months.  5 were convicted.  All convictions were overturned on appeal, but they still served time in prison while appeal was pending. 

Differences: Police actively kettled and corraled the protestors and attacked the protestors leading to a battle.  FBI had agents and instigators embedded within the leaders and the group. 
Some leaders (committed pacifists) had specifically attempted to avoid confrontation with police, while some (Abbie Hoffman) welcomed it.  Feds lumped them all together.
Buncha hippies protesting the Vietnam War and right after RFK and MLK had been killed.  Organizers had asked for and asked for a permit for their march, but it was denied.  12000 fully armed army and national guard troops were on site, as well as 12000 Chicago Police.  The police literally attacked and beat the hell out of the protestors / rioters for 17 minutes on national TV.  7 Police officers were charged by the grand jury for assaulting demonstrators.  Wild stuff, huh?

Anyway, nobody stormed the seat of government.

[TheDrake]

Portland, County DA wouldn't prosecute anyone arrested for anything related to the riots unless there was ironclad video evidence and it involved assault on persons not law enforcement.

Vandalism? Not prosecuted.
Arson? Not prosecuted.
So on and so forth.

Others have already responded, but these are either lies or willful ignorance.

In August, Schmidt said the district attorney's office wouldn't prosecute protesters arrested for city ordinance violations that don't include property damage, theft or the use or threat of force against another person.

Arrest charges for crimes that allege "intentional physical violence against community members and/or law enforcement" will be handled by general office policies, Schmidt said in August. That includes charges for assault and arson.

Schmidt's policy has been met with criticism from the head of the Portland Police Association, the union which represents officers in the Portland Police Bureau. It has also been the target of criticism by other law enforcement officials in neighboring counties and the state.

physical violence against police - prosecuted
Assault - prosecuted
Arson - prosecuted
property damage - prosecuted
threat of force - prosecuted

What did they back off on?

So on August 11, 10 days into his tenure, Schmidt announced that his office would decline to prosecute protesters over the majority of misdemeanor charges they were being arrested for, including criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, and interference with a police officer.

I'd also be perfectly fine with not prosecuting the people who crossed capitol barriers, but remained outside being disorderly on the steps, even though they interfered with police by pushing through them.

[Fenring]

Are Democratic supporters threatening the lives of political opponents and their children?  Are Democratic senators or congress people changing votes because they fear for their families' lives?

But how many people are actually doing this kind of threatening? The question is not just rhetorical, I would be legitimately interested to know whether it's just the same old unhinged crowd (be they D or R) finding targets for their madness, or whether what we might call 'normal people' have taken to this type of speech. In a way we can expect the usual pent-up cases to explode when given the chance to lash out at someone, and I don't think it's particularly telling when those relatively small amounts of people act out. So is it them, or is it 'normal people' (whatever that means)? Because I would be much closer to agreeing with you if it was more mainstream rather than a few loud and annoying nuts.

And for the record, I never heard any of the right-wing people on my social media calling for violence, but regularly (and I mean multiple times a day) heard calls for violence by liberal people, whether in the form of "punch a Nazi", or "I want go to kick the crap out of Republicans right now". Very pugilistic language, and very specific that they actually wanted harm done to such people. But it's a different format than someone at the top calling for violence, it's more people at the bottom following a meme-trend and running with it. Not sure if I can call it grassroots, though, because there are paid groups out there whose job it is to start viral trends and memes.

I'm not sure why you didn't dispute Seriati's claim, given your unbounded reasonableness...

To be honest there are two reasons. One, I frankly don't think Seriati can be persuaded away from his notion that Democrats are evil fascists. Two, to an extent I agree with part of what he says, specifically that there is a distinctly Orwellian element to the left right now, specifically in controlling narrative and attaching consequences to disagreeing with it. To the extent that this could be called fascist I agree with him, but obviously I don't agree that the Democrats are the singular masterminds of all that is wrong with America, and I don't see much benefit of contesting that idea.

[DonaldD]

Brian Kilmeade, of Fox News, on the House introducing an article of impeachment:

We see what's happening around this country, how 50 state houses are being threatened on Inauguration Day, this is the last thing you want to do

Trump supporters (no, not all Trump supporters) are threatening violence against every single state house, and that is why the president shouldn't be impeached... let's roll that around on the tongue for a bit before swallowing.  And Fox is the media that a vast number of Republicans have been abandoning because it was no longer seen as supportive enough of the president.

And I'll say it again - the day after the attack on the Capitol, 45% of self-described Republicans (19 times out of 20, within the margin of error) supported the attack.  Are 45% of Republicans actually threatening their political opponents?  No.  But 45% of them supported the attacks on the Capitol.

[TheDrake]

(19 times out of 20, within the margin of error)

Nope, not 19/20 which would be 95%.

[DonaldD]

19 times out of 20 is the 'standard' confidence interval.  To be clear, I did not check the confidence interval for the poll, I just put that in as a generic disclaimer that this was a poll of a couple of thousand people, so may or may not be representative of reality, but it will be representative within the margin of error, "19 times out of 20"... or maybe 17 times out of 18, or whatever it is depending on methodology and sample size.

Claro?

[TheDrake]

Okay, I've never seen much interest in examining that figure, since it is almost always about what you would expect. Does it really change the argument if the 45% is actually 40%? What is completely clear is you have many millions of people who were perfectly fine with breaking into the house and senate chambers.

[DonaldD]

Yes, that was my point, but I did not want to get bogged down with somebody saying - "but that's a poll!! It could be wrong!!!!"

[LetterRip]

2000 people - if a representative sample (random dial including cell phones or such or a stratified sample) would be extremely likely to be close to the true support 95% Confidence Interval would be +/- 2%.  So 43-47%.

[TheDrake]

But don't you realize it is Antifa interns at the liberal media who never even called a single person and just made up a number to hurt peace-loving Trump loyalists?

[TheDrake]

The Hill reports that Twitter has announced that it has banned over 70,000 accounts sharing content relating to the QAnon conspiracy theory on its platform following the protests at Capitol Hill last week. Twitter confirmed in a recent blog post that it has removed the accounts in an effort to “protect the conversation on our service from attempts to incite violence.”

The blog post states: “We’ve been clear that we will take strong enforcement action on behavior that has the potential to lead to offline harm. Given the violent events in Washington, DC, and increased risk of harm, we began permanently suspending thousands of accounts that were primarily dedicated to sharing QAnon content on Friday afternoon.”