The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
01-07-2021, 03:42 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,204
Total Cats: 98
We had the Trump Rally on the TV yesterday at the office. I do not remember hearing any words from Trump that would incite violence. I've been reading all the stories on the interwebs and I have not seen one with a video clip of the so-called crime. Does anyone have a link that shows the smoking gun video moment?
Personally, I do not believe Trump supporters were at the heart of the incident. This is the coup de grace to break him financially, and persuade Trump never to show up in support of future conservatives.
Personally, I do not believe Trump supporters were at the heart of the incident. This is the coup de grace to break him financially, and persuade Trump never to show up in support of future conservatives.
Reply
0
0
01-07-2021, 05:00 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
I just love how within hours the "group" was called a mob/riot........whereas weeks if not months went by even with fires burning in the background, stores being destroyed, explosives going off... all the headlines were angled as "mostly peaceful protests."
Reply
0
0
01-07-2021, 05:31 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
How did we not know the CAGE was there.
But yeah.
Right = fringe news sites unaccepted by gen populace (at least here in so-cal)
Left = all broadcast news networks, FB, twitter, google, etc.
Are people still calling proud boys = white supremos?
Reply
0
0
01-07-2021, 07:07 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
I've been thinking about the point made earlier, about how yesterday's activity was immediately characterized as a riot, as compared to the more politically correct "mostly peaceful protests" earlier in the year.
And, to me, there is a valid distinction here. It comes down to one basic distinction: Intent.
First of all, I think it's reasonable to characterize any gathering, in which indiscriminate violence aimed against people or property is a major element, as a riot.
Each of the individual BLM riots actually occurred in two distinct phases. At the onset, they were, for the most part, legitimate protests as protected by the first amendment, in which the people gathered to express a valid political opinion: specifically a grievance against the government, as embodied by the police and the courts, for policies and actions considered by many to be discriminatory. Later on, as the sun went down, a distinct element from within those groups opportunistically seized the moment as an excuse for violence and chaos, at which point the protest was over, and the riot began.
The Proud Boys riot, by comparison, did not have any discernable element of protest. Its intent was very clearly to prevent the normal functioning of the government, and to overthrow an elected president. Now, granted, they seem to believe that this election was not legitimate, but that's a matter which, in this country, is intended to be addressed in the courts, not with violence. By employing violence in their effort to overthrow the executive branch of the government, they pretty much satisfied the textbook definition of sedition. The fact of the matter is that people intending to protest do not generally show up equipped with rifles, pipe bombs, and molotov cocktails. Thus, regardless of whether it was a false-flag operation or not, it was obviously intended to be a riot right from the start.
"Stop the Steal!" chanted their leader, Scary Orange Man. And that was their aim. Not to air a grievance, but to interrupt the operation of Congress by force.
And, to me, there is a valid distinction here. It comes down to one basic distinction: Intent.
First of all, I think it's reasonable to characterize any gathering, in which indiscriminate violence aimed against people or property is a major element, as a riot.
Each of the individual BLM riots actually occurred in two distinct phases. At the onset, they were, for the most part, legitimate protests as protected by the first amendment, in which the people gathered to express a valid political opinion: specifically a grievance against the government, as embodied by the police and the courts, for policies and actions considered by many to be discriminatory. Later on, as the sun went down, a distinct element from within those groups opportunistically seized the moment as an excuse for violence and chaos, at which point the protest was over, and the riot began.
The Proud Boys riot, by comparison, did not have any discernable element of protest. Its intent was very clearly to prevent the normal functioning of the government, and to overthrow an elected president. Now, granted, they seem to believe that this election was not legitimate, but that's a matter which, in this country, is intended to be addressed in the courts, not with violence. By employing violence in their effort to overthrow the executive branch of the government, they pretty much satisfied the textbook definition of sedition. The fact of the matter is that people intending to protest do not generally show up equipped with rifles, pipe bombs, and molotov cocktails. Thus, regardless of whether it was a false-flag operation or not, it was obviously intended to be a riot right from the start.
"Stop the Steal!" chanted their leader, Scary Orange Man. And that was their aim. Not to air a grievance, but to interrupt the operation of Congress by force.
Reply
1
1
01-07-2021, 07:19 PM
Junior Member
iTrader: (-1)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 421
Total Cats: 16
I've been thinking about the point made earlier, about how yesterday's activity was immediately characterized as a riot, as compared to the more politically correct "mostly peaceful protests" earlier in the year.
And, to me, there is a valid distinction here. It comes down to one basic distinction: Intent.
First of all, I think it's reasonable to characterize any gathering, in which indiscriminate violence aimed against people or property is a major element, as a riot.
Each of the individual BLM riots actually occurred in two distinct phases. At the onset, they were, for the most part, legitimate protests as protected by the first amendment, in which the people gathered to express a valid political opinion: specifically a grievance against the government, as embodied by the police and the courts, for policies and actions considered by many to be discriminatory. Later on, as the sun went down, a distinct element from within those groups opportunistically seized the moment as an excuse for violence and chaos, at which point the protest was over, and the riot began.
The Proud Boys riot, by comparison, did not have any discernable element of protest. Its intent was very clearly to prevent the normal functioning of the government, and to overthrow an elected president. Now, granted, they seem to believe that this election was not legitimate, but that's a matter which, in this country, is intended to be addressed in the courts, not with violence. By employing violence in their effort to overthrow the executive branch of the government, they pretty much satisfied the textbook definition of sedition. The fact of the matter is that people intending to protest do not generally show up equipped with rifles, pipe bombs, and molotov cocktails. Thus, regardless of whether it was a false-flag operation or not, it was obviously intended to be a riot right from the start.
"Stop the Steal!" chanted their leader, Scary Orange Man. And that was their aim. Not to air a grievance, but to interrupt the operation of Congress by force.
And, to me, there is a valid distinction here. It comes down to one basic distinction: Intent.
First of all, I think it's reasonable to characterize any gathering, in which indiscriminate violence aimed against people or property is a major element, as a riot.
Each of the individual BLM riots actually occurred in two distinct phases. At the onset, they were, for the most part, legitimate protests as protected by the first amendment, in which the people gathered to express a valid political opinion: specifically a grievance against the government, as embodied by the police and the courts, for policies and actions considered by many to be discriminatory. Later on, as the sun went down, a distinct element from within those groups opportunistically seized the moment as an excuse for violence and chaos, at which point the protest was over, and the riot began.
The Proud Boys riot, by comparison, did not have any discernable element of protest. Its intent was very clearly to prevent the normal functioning of the government, and to overthrow an elected president. Now, granted, they seem to believe that this election was not legitimate, but that's a matter which, in this country, is intended to be addressed in the courts, not with violence. By employing violence in their effort to overthrow the executive branch of the government, they pretty much satisfied the textbook definition of sedition. The fact of the matter is that people intending to protest do not generally show up equipped with rifles, pipe bombs, and molotov cocktails. Thus, regardless of whether it was a false-flag operation or not, it was obviously intended to be a riot right from the start.
"Stop the Steal!" chanted their leader, Scary Orange Man. And that was their aim. Not to air a grievance, but to interrupt the operation of Congress by force.
Now before we go on about legitimacy, etc. blah blah blah - I'd first like to bring up Blasey Ford. 1 person. No corroboration, no location, no time - just her single testimony... and she received wall to wall coverage and court dates and representatives gave backing, and etc. 1 person. And here we are... with thousands(?) of people willing to testify in court to foul play and no court date is given? No oddities that people were sent home the night of the election but the counts still continued? Vote spikes that went beyond what the machine could count in an update interval? The last states that could've finished it off...stopped to count the last ~1%? Arizona (among other states) that had the judiciary branch extend the deadline for mail in ballots INSTEAD of the legislative branch voting for that change (if it were to be done per that state's rule book) - this would easily negate mail in ballots received after that date which would also result in AZ going to big T?
I'm not saying that it's definitive... but isn't that more than enough to get a court date? If not, why? An audit? A check to see if there's a paper trail on mail in ballots (envelopes... signatures, etc.)? It's really the only thing that makes me think that the evidence was actually valid.
Edit: But to the point that I totally missed - if the courts won't see you... what's the next constitutionally appropriate step?
Reply
1
1
01-07-2021, 10:33 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
Alternately, one might take a step back, and consider the following: If several dozen courts have all ruled that your claim is baseless, and the governors of every single state whose results you question has personally certified said results, then you are left with two possibilities to consider:
1: You are one of a select few to recognize that a giant conspiracy, previously unheard of in scale and in scope, and which represents the first known example in history of thousands of bureaucrats successfully working together to achieve a common goal while simultaneously keeping a secret, exists, or
2: You are wrong.
Reply
1
1
01-08-2021, 07:57 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
So, as of an hour ago, the President has officially been perma-banned from Twitter.
I think I said this myself sometime ago: If the President's advisors has taken away his access to Twitter four years ago, I strongly believe that we wouldn't now be facing a socialist being one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and a democrat majority in both houses of Congress.
Trump has done more damage to the Republican party, and by extension to the nation as a whole, than any cold-war-era Soviet operative. Just because he couldn't keep from acting like an ******* on Twitter, and thus raising a hitherto unknown rage and fury which goaded all of the liberal muppets into turning out in record numbers to vote for "literally anything other than this."
That's not sarcasm, it's an objective observation.
I think I said this myself sometime ago: If the President's advisors has taken away his access to Twitter four years ago, I strongly believe that we wouldn't now be facing a socialist being one heartbeat away from the Presidency, and a democrat majority in both houses of Congress.
Trump has done more damage to the Republican party, and by extension to the nation as a whole, than any cold-war-era Soviet operative. Just because he couldn't keep from acting like an ******* on Twitter, and thus raising a hitherto unknown rage and fury which goaded all of the liberal muppets into turning out in record numbers to vote for "literally anything other than this."
That's not sarcasm, it's an objective observation.
Reply
3
3
01-08-2021, 08:06 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
No.
Why on earth would they? This question makes no sense.
They also do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the USDA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, or NASCAR.
Why on earth would they? This question makes no sense.
They also do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FAA, the USDA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, or NASCAR.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 01-08-2021 at 08:26 PM.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2021, 08:13 PM
Don't people still watch TV? I mean... I don't, but I thought a lot of people still did. Can't he just talk gibberish on TV instead?
Last edited by wackbards; 01-08-2021 at 09:00 PM.
Reply
0
0
01-08-2021, 10:11 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,031
Total Cats: 6,596
Twitter is a publishing company. The FCC has no more jurisdiction over them than they do a newspaper or a magazine.
With one exception, the FCC regulates only the technical aspects of communications, not the content of communications.
That exception is terrestrial broadcasters (radio & TV stations), and that is only because those stations, having been granted a license to exclusively use a portion of a scare public resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) in a means which is freely receivable by the whole of the population, we are considered to be stewards of that resource, and thus have certain obligations to meet with regard to the public interest.
Twitter does not have a license to use any electromagnetic spectrum.
Some of the carriers which convey Twitter traffic (cell phone companies, satellite companies) do have such licenses, however those companies are common carriers, not content providers. Anyone can use their services to convey their own information. That rule goes back to the 1930s.
But a website does not have any exclusive license to any public resource, and thus is not in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC.
With one exception, the FCC regulates only the technical aspects of communications, not the content of communications.
That exception is terrestrial broadcasters (radio & TV stations), and that is only because those stations, having been granted a license to exclusively use a portion of a scare public resource (the electromagnetic spectrum) in a means which is freely receivable by the whole of the population, we are considered to be stewards of that resource, and thus have certain obligations to meet with regard to the public interest.
Twitter does not have a license to use any electromagnetic spectrum.
Some of the carriers which convey Twitter traffic (cell phone companies, satellite companies) do have such licenses, however those companies are common carriers, not content providers. Anyone can use their services to convey their own information. That rule goes back to the 1930s.
But a website does not have any exclusive license to any public resource, and thus is not in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC.
Reply
2
2
01-09-2021, 08:05 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 807
Total Cats: 163
Reply
0
0
01-09-2021, 08:22 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 807
Total Cats: 163
Joe, I hear what you're saying about the president pissing people off with his comments but that just goes to show how gullible people are. Well, the people that flock to social media like it's the reason why we exist. Instead of looking back and actually seeing what he has done, not what he has said, in the last four years.
I asked the question of what has Trump done in his term in office (and/or policies) that have negatively affected your life and the world as a whole to a liberal autocross acquaintance of mine who I know is an intelligent human being. After answering the question like he felt fit a couple of times and with the typical orange man bad crap, he finally answered the question. He answered, nothing. Trump had actually done nothing negative to affect him yet he still hated him. Now personally I find Trump disgusting, but I felt that way before he was president. The first time I voted against Hillary. This time I voted for him.
I asked the question of what has Trump done in his term in office (and/or policies) that have negatively affected your life and the world as a whole to a liberal autocross acquaintance of mine who I know is an intelligent human being. After answering the question like he felt fit a couple of times and with the typical orange man bad crap, he finally answered the question. He answered, nothing. Trump had actually done nothing negative to affect him yet he still hated him. Now personally I find Trump disgusting, but I felt that way before he was president. The first time I voted against Hillary. This time I voted for him.
Reply
0
0
