All things Trump

[shootemindehead]

No... Just wary of people risk joining in with the media led hugely disproportionate Trump hate fest that's become a norm... There is no "media hate fest" Neil. Trump brings EVERYTHING upon himself with his words and actions. The most egregious being this baseless lie about a "stolen election" that he's been peddling for a year now. One that egged on a mindless horde to riot at the capitol on Jan 6th and one that he won't back away from despite everything to the contrary. The reportage on Trump is exactly how it should be and in fact it's rather restraint. The fat twat should be called out on a daily basis for his lies.

[Neil]

There is no "media hate fest" Neil. Trump brings EVERYTHING upon himself with his words and actions... I can understand that view, but can't agree with some of it... eg: On the topic of disproportionate thinking around Trump, I often find folks who focus in on the Jan 6th riot (which you've raised) strangely will not apply the same standards to the hundreds of riots in the months before; Thousands of officers injured. Hundreds of civilian and federal buildings damaged, destroyed and burned. Numerous lives lost. Billions of dollars of damage. And yet where was the condemnation of this by certain key Democrats at the time? And more concerning, why did some Democrats (including some in the White House now) financially back the rioting by raising money to bail individuals arrested, just to re-offend again. ie: Why not apply exactly the same standards for key Democrats who egged on (& financially backed) mindless hordes for hundreds of riots, resulting in countless death and destruction? My issue is the same standards should be applied, but strangely often are not... And there's countless example of this... The Jan 6th riot was likened to Pearl Harbour and 9/11 recently by Kamala Harris (which is hugely insulting to those events IMHO). But for some reason the other riots mentioned (above) are different. Heck, even just the DC riot resulted in immense damage over numerous days, 50-60 federal agents being injured and the president being evacuated to a 'bunker'. All by rioters Harris (& others) was in effect actively endorsing and funding the bail of. See why I'm confused about some of this seemingly only going in one direction? ps: I fully agree Trump's behaviour and rhetoric regarding the "stolen election" was pi$$ poor.

[shootemindehead]

I can understand that view, but can't agree with some of it... eg: On the topic of disproportionate thinking around Trump, I often find folks who focus in on the Jan 6th riot (which you've raised) strangely will not apply the same standards to the hundreds of riots in the months before Because it's not the same thing and that kind whataboutery won't wash I'm afraid. The insurrection attempt of Jan 6th had the explicit intent to try and over turn the result of a democratic election and they were directly influenced by the sitting President of the time. That, right there, is an astounding indictment of Trump and clear illustration of just how dangerous his mindless utterances are. And it's down to the clear headedness of law enforcement that day that the whole thing didn't end in large scale bloodshed. Bloodshed that Trump and his cronies were probably interested in seeing happen because it would have fed into their further bullshit lies about Democrat conspiracies. Trump knew what he was doing when he egged on these people and fired them up. He wound them up and let them go, resulting in appalling scenes and deaths. Further more, this ridiculous and completely baseless lie about a "stolen election" keeps these fires burning. Trump has absolutely zero interest in dropping this as it maintains the worked up nature of his band of cretins, some of whom can hardly wait to use arms. This shit is seriously dangerous and all the more so because of the leadership behind it. A narcissistic demagogue who's only interest is power achieved on the back of patently absurd falsehoods. This isn't just run-of-the-mill politicking going on here and Jan 6th wasn't just another riot either.

[JDP]

Because it's not the same thing and that kind whataboutery won't wash I'm afraid. The insurrection attempt of Jan 6th had the explicit intent to try and over turn the result of a democratic election and they were directly influenced by the sitting President of the time. That, right there, is an astounding indictment of Trump and clear illustration of just how dangerous his mindless utterances are. And it's down to the clear headedness of law enforcement that day that the whole thing didn't end in large scale bloodshed. Bloodshed that Trump and his cronies were probably interested in seeing happen because it would have fed into their further bullshit lies about Democrat conspiracies. Trump knew what he was doing when he egged on these people and fired them up. He wound them up and let them go, resulting in appalling scenes and deaths. Further more, this ridiculous and completely baseless lie about a "stolen election" keeps these fires burning. Trump has absolutely zero interest in dropping this as it maintains the worked up nature of his band of cretins, some of whom can hardly wait to use arms. This shit is seriously dangerous and all the more so because of the leadership behind it. A narcissistic demagogue who's only interest is power achieved on the back of patently absurd falsehoods. This isn't just run-of-the-mill politicking going on here and Jan 6th wasn't just another riot either. 100% right. Trump believes in democracy obviously only when it suits him. But when it turns out against his wishes and plans, he has no qualms about going against it full on. At first many people thought that Trump was just a harmless loudmouth joker and did not take him seriously, but he has proved how serious and dangerous he can really be when he manipulates his most fanatic followers into doing crazy shit. Trump is like a cult leader.

[Neil]

Because it's not the same thing and that kind whataboutery won't wash I'm afraid. So you don't see a problem with major politicians promoting, supporting and financing riots which:- Injure thousands of police officers? Damage and destroy hundreds of civilian and federal buildings? Result in dozens of police and civilian deaths? Attack around the White House such that the president is moved due to the threat? You can't view that by the same standards? Why? If those riots been by people wearing MAGA hats, thousands of officers injured, dozens of people killed, and Trump had been promoting and supporting them, would you view them differently? The insurrection attempt of Jan 6th What insurrection? There was undeniably violence and damage. But to equate that riot to insurrection? How was there any planned, concerted effort to take over Capital Hill in any meaningful way? There were cases of police even opening gates and doors and ushering people in to Capital Hill. The FBI even found no evidence of any true planning or organisation that had taken place. Was it a spur of the moment insurrection? Do you not wonder why in a country which has the most guns per head in the world, the 'insurrectionists' typically were just folks walking around with flags and keeping to walkways? Do you not question why not a single person has been or will be charged with anything other than assault, trespass or criminal damage? There was certainly violence and criminal activity - which needs to be prosecuted accordingly - but an insurrection attempt? Nope... Trump knew what he was doing when he egged on these people and fired them up. He wound them up and let them go, resulting in appalling scenes and deaths. Egged them on to do what?:- Trump: "Everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capital Hill building to peaceably and patriotically make your voices heard." Trump: "Please support our Capital Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!" etc...etc... BTW - I think him holding that event was a pi$$ poor move. Any trouble - and Capital Hill had been warned of trouble - would reflect badly on him. And of course it did... Note: With Capital Hill warned of potential trouble leading up to the event, why were there not more police or even National Guard there? Hmmm... ...resulting in appalling scenes and deaths. Yep, there was certainly some horrid scenes. Charge the individuals accordingly. Deaths? There were a number of natural deaths and one shooting, Ashley Babbitt who was shot by Lt. Michael Byrd. She was shot under extremely questionable circumstances and IMHO needlessly. She even had a team of armed police offices within a few meters of her I believe who could easily have stopped her, probably simply by voice command. Further more, this ridiculous and completely baseless lie about a "stolen election" keeps these fires burning. I basically agree. There were some odd state legislation/mandates in play, and some very odd voting taking place. But I don't think it affected the outcome... Trump should have simply aired his views and left it at that. He was utterly wrong to blow it up to the scale and proportions he did. Note: The Jan 6th riot is simply being politically weaponised IMHO. Heck, when it's likened to Pearly Harbor or 9/11, how else can you describe it?

[shootemindehead]

So you don't see a problem with major politicians promoting, supporting and financing riots which:- Injure thousands of police officers? Damage and destroy hundreds of civilian and federal buildings? Result in dozens of police and civilian deaths? Attack around the White House such that the president is moved due to the threat? You can't view that by the same standards? Why? If those riots been by people wearing MAGA hats, thousands of officers injured, dozens of people killed, and Trump had been promoting and supporting them, would you view them differently? Because it doesn't reach the same standard, because it's not the same thing. Why are some people so eager to equate the BLM protests with what happened on Jan 6th I wonder? The BLM protests, no matter where one stands on them, erupted out of a myriad of historical racial grievances that have a solid basis in fact. The scenes we saw on Capitol Hill came about from the lies of a sitting president because he lost an election. There isn't any equivalency here whatsoever. What insurrection? There was undeniably violence and damage. But to equate that riot to insurrection? How was there any planned, concerted effort to take over Capital Hill in any meaningful way? Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government. The Jan 6th attempt to overturn the result of the US presidential election fits the bill. Whether the planning or organisation was too inept to see that want go through is immaterial. Those people were there, at least in part, for that purpose and were egged on by the outgoing CnC of the country because he lost an election. There were cases of police even opening gates and doors and ushering people in to Capital Hill. The FBI even found no evidence of any true planning or organisation that had taken place. Was it a spur of the moment insurrection? They opened gates because not doing so would have resulted in a build up of violence. Into the bargain, it was often one officer standing against a large mob of violent thugs. Doing so acted as a safety valve and was a wise move. It certainly wasn't any act of agreement. Elsewhere there were people breaking down doors and smashing windows looking for a way in. Do you not wonder why in a country which has the most guns per head in the world, the 'insurrectionists' typically were just folks walking around with flags and keeping to walkways? Do you not question why not a single person has been or will be charged with anything other than assault, trespass or criminal damage? There was certainly violence and criminal activity - which needs to be prosecuted accordingly - but an insurrection attempt? Nope... Just because there were some simpletons among the number who were on Capitol Hill that day, doesn't mean that this thing was a innocent as you want to portray it. Those people were there because Donald Trump told them that the Democrats had stolen the election. That they had somehow orchestrated a massive conspiracy to deprive him of power and put Joe Biden into office and were in the process of taking over the country. They weren't there simply to protest against some new legislation or something. They were there because they believed that their guy was cheated out of a victory, spurred on by that guy's lies about a "stolen election". There were groups looking around the building for Nancy Pelosi and others chanting "Hang Mike Pence". All it would have taken is for a small number of the more determined of these idiots to have actually gone through with attacking congress members for this to have escalated into a murderous affair and I've no doubt that there were people there that day who'd have gone to that level if those members hadn't been moved to safety. This isn't like the Poll tax riots or a CND march. It was something beyond that. And just because the insurrection attempt was inept and carried out by single digit IQ holders at the behest of a duplicitous snake, it doesn't diminish it. Look, it's clear where you stand on this Neil and where you stand on Trump. Why, I don't know. But it's also clear that this will go nowhere too.

[Neil]

Because it doesn't reach the same standard, because it's not the same thing. We are some people so eager to equate the BLM protests with what happened on Jan 6th I wonder? The BLM protests, no matter where one stands on them, erupted out of a myriad of historical racial grievances that have a solid basis in fact. The scenes we saw on Capitol Hill came about from the lies of a sitting president because he lost an election. There isn't any equivalency here whatsoever. Meanwhile, by your own definition- "Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government." BLM riots:- Multiple riots against an authority and/or government Killed numerous civilians and police officers Attacked, damaged, destroyed, looted and stormed countless civilian and federal buildings Amounted to billions in damage Doesn't count as insurrection? Jan 6th riot:- A bunch of idiotic rioters being violent at Capital Hill. Killed no one Caused probably a few million at most in damage Does count as insurrection? It seems a very selective application of your definition to me? Indeed the former seemed to be a bigger, longer, more organised and planned assault against "authority or government?" And when you consider it had key Democrats actively help and fund those riots? And the notion the idiots at Capital Hill for one moment had any power at all, or were somehow threatening to take control of democracy or overthrow an election result or the like? A couple of armed officers could have stopped any and all antics going on. Ask Ashlett Babbitt. And let's also remember - as you brought BLM up - this is a Marxist group, who are attempting to alter the fabric and political makeup of the US and other democracies. The violence egged on by BLM helped that purpose. But you suggest their actions are not "a violent uprising against an authority or government"? So to me it seems rather selective criticism and language... And I'd suggest again, had the BLM riots instead been seen individuals wearing MAGA hats rioting and killing people, supported/funded by Trump, your view would probably be different... Again, I in no way endorse what happened at Capital Hill. It was a clusterf***, but it was the action of a minority of idiots, and little more than a violent riot carried out by opportunist idiots. My issue is it's simply being milked for all it's worth politically, hence we end up with ridiculous unhinged rhetoric and equivalences being made. And this includes pretending it was an insurrection.

[shootemindehead]

Meanwhile, by your own definition- "Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government." BLM riots:- Multiple riots against an authority and/or government Killed numerous civilians and police officers Attacked, damaged, destroyed, looted and stormed countless civilian and federal buildings Amounted to billions in damage Doesn't count as insurrection? Jan 6th riot:- A bunch of idiotic rioters being violent at Capital Hill. Killed no one Caused probably a few million at most in damage Does count as insurrection? It seems a very selective application of your definition to me? Indeed the former seemed to be a bigger, longer, more organised and planned assault against "authority or government?" And when you consider it had key Democrats actively help and fund those riots? Again, you're trying to equate the BLM protests with what happened on Capitol Hill on Jan 6th. That whataboutery isn't going to wash Neil.

[Neil]

Again, you're trying to equate the BLM protests with what happened on Capitol Hill on Jan 6th. That whataboutery isn't going to wash Neil. Then we simply disagree on the scale/importance of what happened and/or seemingly what even just counts as "a violent uprising against an authority"... And as if to emphasise this, I'd not expect something described as "protests" to injure thousands of police officers, kill dozens of people and cause billions of dollars of property damage etc. Hence me construing them as something else. Indeed, I could suggest then, an event where only a few officers were injured, no one was killed (by the protestors), and only a few million dollars of property was damaged might stand more of a chance of being described as a "protest" (than the above). And certainly described as "a mostly peaceful protest" by CNN standards. So clearly we differ in our interpretations... Which is fine...

[shootemindehead]

Then we simply disagree on the scale/importance of what happened and/or seemingly what even just counts as "a violent uprising against an authority"... And as if to emphasise this, I'd not expect something described as "protests" to injure thousands of police officers, kill dozens of people and cause billions of dollars of property damage etc. Hence me construing them as something else. Indeed, I could suggest then, an event where only a few officers were injured, no one was killed (by the protestors), and only a few million dollars of property was damaged might stand more of a chance of being described as a "protest" (than the above). And certainly described as "a mostly peaceful protest" by CNN standards. So clearly we differ in our interpretations... Which is fine... It's not about disagreement on "scale" or "importance" Neil. They are simply NOT the same thing. And the only reason the BLM protests are brought up in conjunction with Jan 6th is to deflect away from what happened on that day. It's a completely false equivalence. Just because there was violence at both events, it doesn't mean that they were borne out of the same reasons for existing or that they mirrored one another to any real degree. One was a series of actions that came about because of historical injustices perpetrated upon a section of the populace, irrespective of the criticisms that can be levelled at it. The other was an attempt to overturn a democratic election result on the back of seditious lies from the loser of that election. A loser who continues, to this day, in repeating those lies. Snooker and golf are played with balls and sticks and are both sports. But they are not the same either.

[Neil]

It's not about disagreement on "scale" or "importance" Neil. They are simply NOT the same thing. And the only reason the BLM protests are brought up in conjunction with Jan 6th is to deflect away from what happened on that day. It's a completely false equivalence. Just because there was violence at both events, it doesn't mean that they were borne out of the same reasons for existing or that they mirrored one another to any real degree. One was a series of actions that came about because of historical injustices perpetrated upon a section of the populace, irrespective of the criticisms that can be levelled at it. The other was an attempt to overturn a democratic election result on the back of seditious lies from the loser of that election. A loser who continues, to this day, in repeating those lies. Snooker and golf are played with balls and sticks and are both sports. But they are not the same either. "BLM protests?" - When individuals are damaging property, attacking people and police, killing people and police, that to me is not a protest, it's a riot. And to suggest the individuals involved in much of that rioting were anything to do with peaceful individuals actually protesting is naive IMHO. ie: Many of the individuals were habitual trouble makers or political activists who were simply being opportunistic with a given situation. Heck, consider the folks that were rioting in Kenosha and who Kyle Rittenhouse had to defend himself against. Is it a coincidence they all had criminal records or were even serious sex offenders? Now move to Jan 6th where virtually everyone protesting there was peaceful, and just a minority of idiots were being violent and/or causing damage. I might even suggest many were simply being opportunistic with a given situation. Ultimately we end up with similar modus operandi... But again, we're seemingly not going to agree on this, which is fine.

[shootemindehead]

And to suggest the individuals involved in much of that rioting were anything to do with peaceful individuals actually protesting is naive IMHO. ie: Many of the individuals were habitual trouble makers or political activists who were simply being opportunistic with a given situation. Heck, consider the folks that were rioting in Kenosha and who Kyle Rittenhouse had to defend himself against. Is it a coincidence they all had criminal records or were even serious sex offenders? If I'd actually said any of this, you might have a point. But I didn't. But what I will say is this...again...I reject completely the efforts to use BLM as a deflection method to draw away attention from the events of Jan 6th 2021, because they are not the same thing. Hey, if you want to open a thread and bang on about BLM, go right ahead. Because they don't belong here.

[Neil]

If I'd actually said any of this, you might have a point. But I didn't. But what I will say is this...again...I reject completely the efforts to use BLM as a deflection method to draw away attention from the events of Jan 6th 2021, because they are not the same thing. Hey, if you want to open a thread and bang on about BLM, go right ahead. Because they don't belong here. But, BLM plays no part in the point at all? In my comparison between the Jan 6th riot and the riots in the months before that, I said the individuals rioting in truth were nothing to do with the peaceful individuals actually protesting. ie: The idiots rioting on Jan 6th and pre-Jan 6th I doubt had little true interest in their supposed cause, or represented their cause. So I couldn't careless under what supposed cause or reason people are attacking and killing people and police, or burning and destroying property. It makes not one jot of difference. It's a riot whatever the supposed cause or justification. If it looks like a riot, swims like a riot, and quacks like a riot, then it probably is a riot. The riots pre-Jan 6th were far worse and to simply give them a wave of the wrist because they were supposedly for a more noble cause of X rather than Y seems odd, and frankly dangerous. Oh! You're attempting to burn people to death supposedly for BLM? That's OK then... Surely, to coin a phrase, that isn't going to wash. Because - and here's the issue - if the folks on Jan 6th had simply been carrying BLM flags and 'protesting' for a different reason, should we look at their actions differently? Why?

[shootemindehead]

But, BLM plays no part in the point at all? No. All you're doing is a Family Guy cutaway..."You think that's bad..." in an effort to deflect from the events of Jan 6th and subsequently try and shield Donald Trump.

[Neil]

No. All you're doing is a Family Guy cutaway..."You think that's bad..." in an effort to deflect from the events of Jan 6th and subsequently try and shield Donald Trump. Not at all.... I'm highlighting how disproportionate a view is which considers one riot OK, and another not OK. ie: How objective and considered is such a view? If a riot is because of an election, BLM or unicorn farts, it should not make a jot of difference to how we construe those events? Correct? So, at the end of the day the Jan 6th riot was a bunch of idiots getting carried away which resulted in truth in little damage. Indeed it ultimately just delayed the activities of the chamber for a few hours. In the scheme of things is was trivial compared to far worse riots in the months before which resulted in more damage, lasted days and where rioters actually killed people. If the actions of the first are for some reason considered worse than the latter, that doesn't appear very objective IMHO. And how reasoned are the conclusions that then follow? The capital hill riot was just that, a riot. The people involved in any damage and violence should be charged accordingly. But to blow it out of logical proportion so as not to even be able to look at it objectively enough to see other riots before it were far worse in size, duration, damage, violence and death? Again, how reasoned are the conclusions that then follow?