Trump supporters threatened state Capitols but failed to show
Category: News & Politics
Via: drakkonis • 3 years ago • 180 commentsBy: Andrew Blankstein and Corky Siemaszko (MSN)
Not sure what to think about the no-show. I wasn't very convinced of a plot to show up at all 50 state capitols to begin with. Maybe they were deterred by the heavy security or maybe there was never an intent in the first place. After the events of the 6th, I think a lot of people had cold water splashed in their face. The largest group to have made a showing anywhere was Antifa, apparently.
Anyway, what do you think? Was there really a likelihood of something happening in your opinion?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump supporters threatened state Capitols but failed to show
National Guard troops on high alert, police barricades lining the streets, government buildings shuttered — the surreal high-security scene in Washington was mirrored at state Capitols across the country Wednesday as a nervous nation braced for more violence by Trump supporters opposed to the inauguration of President Joe Biden.
© Provided by NBC News
In the two weeks since the deadly Jan. 6 siege of the U.S. Capitol, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, concerned that the right-wing extremists who continue to back former President Donald Trump might stage another attack on Inauguration Day, had turned Capitol campuses into fortified encampments.
But the fury appeared to fizzle after Trump exited the White House and Biden took the oath of office and officially became the 46th president of the United States.
"The message that was sent by law enforcement ahead of the inauguration was very clear, that there would be thousands of police officers and troops guarding these buildings," said Brian Higgins, the former police chief in Bergen County, New Jersey. "I'm sure that is one reason why there haven't been many protesters."
Higgins, who teaches at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, said that as investigators sift through the online postings of extremist groups, it is often difficult to separate actual plots from postings that are meant "to stir us up."
"Intelligence is often a judgment call, because people post crazy stuff every day," Higgins said.
Another factor, law enforcement sources said, was the "shock and awe" of the swift arrests by the FBI and the Justice Department of the pro-Trump rioters who ransacked the Capitol.
There was exactly one pro-Trump protester outside the heavily fortified New York state Capitol in Albany.
"I was coming out to hopefully join a bunch of peaceful protesters in supporting the cause, that is almost a lost cause now, unfortunately, I'm sad to say," Mark Leggiero, who was holding a Trump flag, told The Daily Gazette of Schenectady.
© Hans Pennink Image: Protester in Albany, N.Y. (Hans Pennink / AP)
Outside the Pennsylvania State Capitol in Harrisburg, NBC News spotted a single pro-Trump protester wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Impeach China Joe."
In California, a small group of protestors got past a police barrier and began chanting outside the heavily guarded and fenced-off state Capitol in Sacramento. But they appeared to be antifa activists and could be heard denouncing Trump.
After the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the FBI sent a memo to law enforcement agencies warning about possible armed protests at all 50 state Capitols starting last Saturday, Jan. 16.
So when a small group of armed Trump supporters showed up Sunday at the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus to protest the election results, they were vastly outnumbered by law enforcement officers.
In Salem, Oregon, the few Trump backers were even more outnumbered by police officers and members of the National Guard.
And in Trump bastions like Oklahoma, the protesters simply failed to show.
Still, there was plenty of reason to worry about violence on Inauguration Day. Last month, a person was shot during post-election clashes between pro- and anti-Trump demonstrators in the Washington state capital, Olympia.
And in what turned out to be a prelude to the U.S. Capitol siege, armed protesters opposed to Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's Covid-19 lockdown orders swarmed inside the State Capitol in April.
In June 2019, a "possible militia threat" by right-wingers opposed to a climate change bill forced the closing of the Oregon state Capitol.
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours. Microsoft may earn an Affiliate Commission if you purchase something through recommended links in this article.
And if you agree with Biden, try not to treat the other person as an enemy but someone to have a discussion with. Thanks.
Also, it should be noted that two examples listed in the article, the one for Ohio and Oregon, didn't happen today. They happened Sunday.
Well, whatever they did-- it was highly effective!
I saw about 200 antifa people marching down my street followed by about 25 police on bicycles and about a dozen police vehicles. There were a bunch more police in the alley on bicycles too and 2 helicopters. (1 was press) Only one trumpie flying his truck flag. I was about 6 blocks from the Capitol in Sacramento.
If they accept Biden's victory as fair and legit (and don't ascribe to the Q bullshit") then sure. If not then fuck them.
A greed, as how can won take serious the one incapable selection who FAIL to be the acception of the exceptionally gullible Trumpers, who refuse to believe their guy LOST, NO MATTER WHAT THE COST
They probably punked out after realizing that security would be heavily armed and would not be taking any of their shit
So you think there was a real plan to go to all 50 state capitals, or some portion of them and the only thing that stopped them was the security?
Yes.
Admirable concision.
Also... quite correct.
Why?
Yes.
Yes, but they also stayed away after seeing what happened to hundreds of 1/6 rioters; arrests, loss of jobs, the scorn and disgust of the public, fear of legal repercussions.
Okay, thanks for your answer.
I think there were some limited plans, I am not going to pretend we have anything in the way of masterminds when dealing with these people, and they went to shit when they saw that state and federal governments weren't fucking around. Also their total lack of public support, watching Trump leave office with a whimper (he never fucking cared about you btw) and somewhat realizing that they had been had probably had something to do with it. And it is the end of the month, gotta pay the bills.
... holy shit, that is why the inauguration is on the 20th! People can't pitch too much of a fit because bills are coming due and they need the hours! Brilliant.
If there were plans then I think you're most likely right. Or maybe just an effort to get a plan going. Dunno.
Oh, it certainly had that effect and I think it included a lot of people on the right. I think most people on the right were pretty pissed off by what happened because, whether deserved or not, it stained us too.
There was never a moment where I thought he cared about anyone but himself. Even before, he was elected. Nor did I vote for him the first time around. I didn't vote for anyone because I didn't like any of them.
I think you've solved it! Well done! : )
I wonder how many Trump supporters recognize this? My guess is about ⅓ of them realized it and sucked it up. Maybe another ⅓ noticed it and twisted it into 'Trump is manly; Trump is smart; Trump is not afraid to speak his mind;
, ...). The remaining ⅓ might just be unaware — too apathetic to pay attention to more than the most general facts (e.g. economy seems good, no major wars, ...).
The radical Trump supporters would be a minority within the middle ⅓ (i.e. the Trump is manly crowd).
Much like the Trump admin, they were mostly ideas floated around with some random person put in charge, and then never followed up on.
And that is my issue with those on the right, very few spoke up. Almost no one said anything regardless of what he did. So yes, in my view all of those who supported the GOP and Trump are complicit.
Yeah, as I reread that I realized how it could be taken the wrong way. I didn't mean you specifically, but the royal you. His general supporters.
Man, those who decided the 20th of Jan was inauguration day were way ahead of their time.
Yeah, it would be nice if we could know what the numbers actually are. Like anything, it's probably on a bell curve of some type. What I'd give a lot to know is just how many white supremacists, Antifa and other extremist types there actually are.
As for the "Trump is many; Trump is smart blah blah blah" types, I think Biden will have his own following that are essentially the same. And I don't get that. Neither Trump or Biden are the second coming. What human ever deserves that kind of worship? How can they make any sort of rational judgement on what the man (any man or woman) is doing through all the stars in their eyes?
That was by far Trump's biggest weakness. He had ideas on what he wanted to do, but he thought the Aura of his Trumpness was enough to get it done. He really had little idea of how to do it and didn't listen to anyone who knew.
Take China, for instance. He thought being a tough guy all by himself was enough, when what he should have done is built a coalition of nations. But he'd already burned a lot of those bridges being a tough guy with them. And he never learned. Now, I'm worried China's going to invade Taiwan and I'm not sure Biden would do anything about it or if the Dems would back him up if he did try.
You're welcome to your views, of course. For myself, I don't feel complicit. I feel like it was the only choice available to me, as bad as it might have been. Because I believe where the Dems want to take us is going to be a lot worse. I hope I'm wrong but I'm already seeing signs of what I expected.
Even if you had meant me specifically, I don't see what there could be to be offended about.
Yeah, but I bet everyone at the inauguration was wondering the same thing. Why the hell couldn't they have set a date like June 20th?
Of course he will ... of course he does. Sycophants are not particular to a single party.
I doubt that Biden will have the level of blind support that Trump seems to have had. Rather, I think Biden will have to work like a dog just keeping the various competing factions in his party at bay. And this is one key area where his VP choice is not going to serve him well (I predict).
Yeah. I've always thought the Dem side was more like trying to herd cats than the Repub side.
I tend to agree, but who knows.
Two weeks wasn't enough time to regroup. Trump's two months of nonsense and bullshit was the perfect cover to plan the Capitol attack. He is a pro at the 'lookee over here, combined with 'what man behind what curtain?', method of distraction.
On the other hand, what do I know? I'm just a simple nun.
I don't understand. You just now said that Trump's lack of foresight has put Taiwan in a bad place... and now you say you feared the Dems would do worse. What did you imagine they would do?
It seems to me that many Trumpists do this: Invent a bugaboo (however unlikely), and then erect Trump as Protector Against the Bugaboo.
Maybe true for the protestors, but we need to recognize the vast number of supporters out there. Out of 74+ million people even a minuscule fraction of a percentage is sufficient to produce an angry mob.
This is why the words of a PotUS are so potent. It does not take much to whip a sufficient number of nutcases up into a frenzy.
How many times did Trump get crowds of fifteen thousand? A hundred times? We're talking about (very) roughly a million or two who came to his rallies. These are the people who strolled around the Capitols grounds, while their slightly more rabid brethren broke in and smashed.
Even with two million at the rallies, we're far from his total vote... and Yuma is surely not typical. But we've had a ton of local manifestations - with guns of course. If this is happening elsewhere, we're talking tens of millions, maybe.
Have you ever heard one of your "rational Trump supporters" criticize the blatant intimidation that has gone on in state capitols?
Those knuckle draggers are oh so tough when armed and overwhelming a few officers and security personnel, but if they should become outnumbered by armed personnel who will fire if necessary, they retreat to their man caves and cower.
I honestly think the majority of those 'storming the Capitol' 'It's a revolution!' didn't believe there were would be any repercussions whatsoever because their dear leader led them on/egged them on/spurred them on - started the fire, then poured on the gasoline
Those are my feelings as well on this whole thing. If they supported tRump all the way, up to and including denying the election results and wanting to overturn them, they are complicit and responsible for everything that happened on January 6th, 2021.
"Two weeks wasn't enough time to regroup. Trump's two months of nonsense and bullshit was the perfect cover to plan the Capitol attack. He is a pro at the 'lookee over here, combined with 'what man behind what curtain?', method of distraction.
On the other hand, what do I know? I'm just a simple nun."
I'm so glad you brought this up SMAAB - I thought of this the other night and it would have completely slipped my mind if you hadn't mentioned it.
HELL NO! It's always, 'no big deal' like when the plot about kidnapping Gretchen Whitmer came out, I remember someone saying 'well, they would have returned her in a couple of hours'
What the huh?
Now that is a strawman 'argument' if ever! Biden does not bill himself as "the Chosen One." Biden doesn't now wish to be a cult of personality. That is, Biden is not setting himself up to respond to culture 'wars.' He desperately, in some ways even, is asking to speak to all of us in this country not just liberals. He is promising to be frank and bold with our national problems and to keep truth and clarity central to his adminstration.
Biden doesn't seek "worship" of any kind. As is the Catholic way - he sees to be of creature of service and care to our nation and the world's humanity. You can see this oozing from the flesh of a man borne to display it all his long lifetime.
What you see if Joe Biden is not narcissism or arrogant. It is true humility. Look closer and be open to that. It's the way of Christ to be so.
I keep my good eye on that snake in the grass. I'll be up in the middle of the night, like Al Sharpton going, "Nice try but we got you! Donald ain't gone he is just in "prep."
When he comes back with the same of bull 'strokes' we are going to feed them back into him and his. Donald this is you: One and done!
You appear not to know what a strawman argument is so I've provided you a link so that you can know. Since I was not responding to someone else's quote or argument with an argument but, rather, expressing my opinion I could not have presented a strawman argument. In other words, I was not making an argument either for or against anything anyone said.
But, if we look at what you have said here in your reply to me, we can see a strawman argument which you have committed. I did not indicate in anything I said that Biden presents himself as the chosen one, nor anything like that. Presenting your argument as if I had is an example of a strawman argument.
Great little article for seeding. Way too many people engage in strawman arguments here.
A strawman argument? Is that scarecrow arguing why he needs a brain?
Come to find out, all one needs is a fake diploma.
I see a combination of Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. Unless someone actually tells him what to do, he is going to cower. You can see it already. Get ready for the apology tour......................
He's a sleazy and corrupt POS
Go for it, but I don't have much hope it would make a difference. It doesn't seem many here are interested in actual discussion.
I may joke around a lot but you are one person I could have a conversation with.
Thanks. That's nice to hear. I didn't respond to 2.1.28 because it went over my head. Sorry.
Actually, I just got it. : )
I sometimes get there, in the end.
I agree, but it would at least be something we can refer to.
Or aspire to? Haha
What's in red is your 'opposite argument' . No one has suggest Biden is AS Donald, until you decided to argument against it being so. You are USING somebody's argument to attack Joe Biden for something only you have drummed up.
More to the point:
As is the Catholic way - [Biden] seens to be of creature of service and care to our nation and humanity. You can see this oozing from the flesh of a man borne to display it all his long lifetime.
What you see ii Joe Biden is not narcissism or arrogant. It is true humility. Look closer and be open to that. It's the way of Christ to be so.
Cease the charade of trivialities and surprise me by including at least the larger theme in a reply along with if not 'alone' with your suggested (questionable?) "improvements" !
Types of strawman arguments
There are countless ways to distort an opposing view when using a strawman. Common ways to do so include:
In addition, there are various other ways in which people create strawman arguments, which can be as minor as changing small details in their opponent’s original statement, or as major as completely fabricating claims that their opponent has never made in the first place.
However, all of these techniques share one thing in common: they all involve someone distorting the opposing stance, in order to make it easier to attack.
As such, strawman arguments are relatively simple to recognize in discourse. Essentially, when you realize that there is a mismatch between someone’s stance and the stance that their opponent is attacking, it’s a clear sign that a strawman is being used. Nevertheless, in practice it can be sometimes difficult to notice or to be sure whether this type of argument has been used, especially if the person who is using the strawman knows what they’re doing.
It is a great little article, nevertheless!
I am sorry you feel that way. I see a man who AS Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama is humble enough to both go to church and promise to not deliver a hefty, overflowing pack of lies for four years running and who knows with Trump there is a high probability he is somewhere (on the planet) adding to his tall tale listing right now! What do you say to that, huh? What you think?
Is Donald Trump somewhere on the planet lying right this minute, J-J? Help me out: What is your secret to knowing when Donald is telling the truth?
Unsavory and reactionary rhetoric aside,. . . what is your honest assessment. I'd love to read it. Waiting. . . .
Or possibly when they realized that Trump wouldn't be around to pardon them for their crimes.
Have you heard if any of them got pardons?
Of course not, they're rubes and cannon fodder to Trump. He barely cares about his own family.
Morning. But isn't that the way of cowards??? Pick on someone weaker or unprepared to get their 10 minutes of fame..But when they are prepared and waiting you don't see them for dust. Plus they think safety in numbers and now even that has diminished.
What's that saying.."no guts no glory"..if they were really true to their supposed cause they would have been there up against the National Guard..
Their no show speaks volumes as they slink back under their rocks from where they came..
Slow and steady as you go..you will always have that feral element..every country does..
You mob will be right and that I have never doubted..
Answers the age old question. What if you had a war and nobody showed up?
I will just interpret a no show as a sign that the radical Trump supporters are starting to face reality.
Clearly (as evidenced right here) not every Trump supporter has come to grips with reality. But any movement towards accepting reality and dealing with it responsibly is a good thing.
Hopefully, but you got me wondering. What makes a person a radical Trump supporter and how defined is the line determining radicalism? I think it's probably a fuzzy and broad line, not narrow and sharp. I think, or hope, maybe, that what happened on the 6th moved a lot of people out of that line and into more rational territory. I'm not sure there's reaching the truly radical, but who knows.
To me, a radical Trump supporter is one who is defying reality. There are a few tells including:
In contrast, I would suggest that a non-radical Trump supporter would be an individual who likes Trump's policies (as s/he perceives them) and would have preferred to see him reelected but has accepted as legitimate the constitutional process which delivered Biden as the new PotUS.
Sounds to me like all those Hillieary supporters that rioted after the 2016 elections including in D.C. on inauguration day in 2017. It also sounds a lot like many of those right here on Newstalkers that complained about Trump from day one of his presidency and even before any of his policies ( most if which were very positive for the country and Biden plans to destroy) were in place
Stay focused arkpdx, we are talking about radical Trump supporters. Hillary and 2016 are long gone.
Trump policies. . .like the tax cuts. . .that did not anticipate a pandemic that lasts nearly a year out and has taken 400,000 plus lives, damages business profits from coast to coast, and is literally making more people jobless and unable to manage rent payments and mortgages. Around here, I see people literally sitting on sidewalks with everything they own. They are not the 'normal' street people.
Or, do you mean the border wall that four years later still is not currently housing a "big, beautiful door." I
Or, do you mean the immigrant child separation policy that eagerly removed children from their parents at the border, but was so damaging that it was rescinded?
Or, the policy of lies told daily in order to redirect streams of consciousness down 'rabbit holes' and tunnels where truth was too slow to catch up?
Which? Or, do you have something else?
I don't remember you complaining about them though . But the when it come to liberals doing thing well that's so yesterday right?
Get a grip man. I am not the subject and neither is your memory.
We aren't talking about Trump, either. The topic is the threat to the capitols.
Shhh--- weren't we supposed to keep that secret?
What was that you were saying, Drakkonis?
I like to speak for myself, but TiG nailed it.
Do you really think these exist?
They're unicorns. Mythical.
Absolutely. I have plenty of family and friends who are/were Trump supporters and would not even consider violence of any kind related to Trump. I suspect the vast majority of current/former Trump supporters are ordinary people who do not turn to radical measures when things do not work out for them.
I think many are just ordinary people who were duped by Trump-- he a brilliant con artist. And yes-- many are real nutcases, just of the borderline between sanity and insanity.
But remember, just before the terrorists stormed the Capitol, Trump held a rally, Butnthis time he directly advocated violence. And while previously he got them to believethe biglie (Thatthe Elwection was "fixed"), at this particular rally he convinced them that if they marched on the capitol-- they couldactually get Congress to change the votes! And he directly told them to use violence!
If anyone forgets exactly how Trump incited the mob to violence-- here are the exact words:
Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
Here is a closer look at what the president said at a rally of his supporters, which is a central focus of the impeachment case being prepared against him . ( READ IT ALL )
I highly recommend bookmarking that page-- so that if anyone starts makingfalse claim here on NT (or elsewhere) you can post the actual facts!
I was opposed to Trump before he even ran for president. Not because of his policies, which I disagree with 99%, but because he is an absolutely shitty person down to the core. he does not have one single redeeming quality. That is the main reason I have always opposed him and hope he dies a horrible death.
Totally agree.
hope he dies a horrible death.
I like how you express yourself emphatically but "a horrible death" may be a bit over the top, just say'n.
But it's soooo much easier to think of them all as evil incarnate. And really, that's what goes on a lot in here and in the media.
The fringe is where the excitement lies. It is boring talking about the average Joe (or Jane) going about their daily lives. Funny how we seem to overlook the silent majority and shape our views in terms of the slim minority extremes.
It's that, and a bit more, I think. In fact, it's what scares me most about what's going on. It's as if the people who are supposed to be sane are content being led by their emotions. And we're seeing a lot of that, fueled by MSM in my opinion, Fox included.
Don't forget those proclaiming to be part of the "resistance." Unless that falls under Trump sycophants?
Most Trump supporters on Jan 6 did not invade the Capitol. But they didn't go home, either. They remained outside the building, lending moral support to the insurgents inside.
That's the Trumpists, running from active sedition to passive support for sedition... but in all cases disregarding the rule of law.
Without that passive mass, the insurgents would never have entered the building.
''Reasonable Trumpist'' is a unicorn.
Perhaps my neighborhood is special. There are still some Trump flags flying.
The insurgents inside the Capitol were a minority... but the people who stood by, giving moral support, were ''normal'', ''law-abiding'' Trumpists. Without their presence, the Capitol would never have been overrun.
It's like the good folk who observed lynchings: they never touched the rope.
Kyle Rittenhouse?
The average Joe does not go looking for people to shoot. Kyle Rittenhouse is obviously (and lucky for us all) an extreme exception. In a nation of 328+ million, we will have all sorts of strange people on the fringe.
I don't think he went looking for someone to shoot necessarily. I think he went with gun in hand thinking he would intimidate someone(s) into running from him and stopping just because he was there. In lieu of shitting his pants, he pulled the trigger.........chicken shit when push came to shove.
Dumbass came into a grown up world still wet (and dripping) behind the ears.
Kyle Rittenhouse is obviously (and lucky for us all) an extreme exception.
Rittenhouse didn't go "looking for people to shoot." He's not Michael Reinoehl who went out looking to kill a Trump supporter, or Michah Johnson who went out to kill cops at a BLM protest.
Nobody can get into his mind Jim. But it is clear that he is an exception.
Then maybe he should have not loaded rounds into his weapon.
My point is that there are relatively few people who have loaded weapons with the intent of shooting people with those weapons. Rittenhouse clearly had the intent to shoot people (not deer) given he was armed and he did in fact shoot people. His gun did not accidentally get loaded and accidentally discharge into human bodies. See how that works?
Certainly, Rittenhouse is not in the middle of the bell curve... but equally certainly, he is in that curve. So the other elements near him may not have killed anyone (yet) but they're apt to do so.
Niemöller looms over this.
Maybe you and Sean should have a chat over this.
So anyone who carries a loaded weapon is looking to kill people? Per your logic, shooting someone who is shooting at you, is no different than the guy who creates a sniper's den in a parking garage in order to shoot cops who cross his path. Same intent. They were both "looking to shoot people." The simple act of carrying a loaded guns means you want to shoot people.
and he did in fact shoot people
So you don't recognize the possibility of self defense. Got it. If you shoot someone, you were looking to shoot people. Circumstances don't matter.
Both sides do it?
Someone who loads a weapon and intentionally goes to an emotion-driven event and who in fact shoots projectiles into the bodies of people did, ipso facto, have the intent of shooting people. I did not say he walked into the venue and immediately discharged his weapon like a mass murderer. He had conditions for when he would discharge his weapon and those conditions were met several times. If the conditions were right, Rittenhouse clearly intended to use his loaded weapon by firing into human bodies. His intended targets were human beings (aka people). See? And this was not just a a wild thought, he absolutely was going to shoot people if the circumstances were right because he did.
Again you generalize into a stupid question. I will let you figure this out for yourself given the hint I just wrote above.
No, you and Sean are looking at the extreme ends of this.
Both sides do not do it.
You talk like we have a nice neat symmetrical bell curve. We do not. We have a VERY skewed curve. The mode of the Trumpist population is far over on the "crazy" side.
So you don't understand the word intent, got it. Imagine claiming every result is intended because it occurred.
I did not say he walked into the venue and immediately discharged his weapon like a mass murderer.
But that's the situation where a shooter was looking to shoot people. The shooter went out with the specific intent to shoot people.
He had conditions for when he would discharge his weapon and those conditions were met several times.
That's not nearly the same thing as claiming he went "looking to shoot people." You've already given up your argument, whether you understand what you did or not. The claim that he was "looking to shoot people" means the circumstances didn't matter, he was going out with the specific intent to shoot people.
f the conditions were right, Rittenhouse clearly intended to use his loaded weapon by firing into human bodies.
That would apply to 99% of people carrying guns, right? Most people would in fact shoot someone under the right circumstances. Your original claim was that he "was looking to shoot people" Period. No conditions or circumstances necessary.
gain you generalize into a stupid question
Don't blame me because you are making a stupid argument. Since I'm trying to find out the presupposition and beliefs that drive your stupid argument, the application of your principles may, in fact, appear stupid. If you don't want stupid questions, make a better argument.
My neighbors were TS's, but they accepted the election and have returned to their lives, even wishing Biden success.
I have seen you drone this out over and over, as if it is an objective fact, when it is anything but. Conservatives think Trump's policies benefited the country, but most liberals and Democrats do not.
Having policies that people approve of does not make one fit for office in itself, but even if it did I see no evidence that the majoriy of Americans approved of Trumps policies overall.
So just stop, ok ?
Bob, you brought in this 'both sides do it' strawman out of thin air. I stated that this is not what I was saying. You ignore me and continue arguing your strawman.
Do not play these stupid games with me.
You apparently do not 'get' anything I am writing.
What you are doing is simply trolling. You take a comment, generalize it into a stupid question and then argue it.
Find a better past time than trying to invent something petty to argue about on a social media site.
Sometimes it happens that a person says one thing while doing another... perhaps unconsciously. I always read all your Comments. Taken together, they say "both sides do it".
I don't recall any riots or mob insurrections on the Capitol when Hillary lost.
Which tRump brought about/spurred on/led - started the fire and then poured on the gasoline - they're just petering out now. I guess they've only got one 'good storming the Capitol - It's a Revolution! - in 'em.
Those are pretty much one and the same
Why do so many of tRump's supporters live in the past? Some in the relatively recent past, some in the not so recent past, some in the distant past, some up to 50 to 60 years ago
Then you have failed to accurately read my comments. Or you have read what you wanted to read. I do not care, Bob. I have very little patience nowadays for people making arguments and pretending that they are in some way debating what I wrote. And I have no patience for people insisting they know my position better than I.
Everything tRump said in that incitement to a riot/mob/insurrection was atrocious but I find this the most atrocious of all
As he dispatched his supporters into what became deadly chaos, Trump falsely told them that he would come, too.
As he sicced his supporters on Congress, Mr. Trump assured them that he would personally accompany them to the Capitol. In fact, as several of his followers and police officers were being injured or dying in the ensuing chaos, the president was watching the violence play out on television from the safety of the White House.
The problem here is not with those of us who watch, feel, and respond to what conservatives say and do! Donald Trump said things and we lived through the very actions days, weeks, months, and years later. The Trump supporters "promised" to attend D.C. capitol and show out—they did so in triplicate. So when there is circulated chatter about a 50 states campaign of terror (more of the same), we are right to consider they are not the boy shouting wolf! They have earned a measure of legitimacy through their error!
They earned the label, "evil-doers," because of what they did and threatened to follow through on another day.
The moral of this narrative: The squeaky wheel did flip over its wagon after a while! Pay attention to the noise!!!
Okay, now you put fact to display perfectly. Emphatically.
Oops, my comment was moreso about Dylan Roof!
I am thinking Dylan Roof! So I withdraw my remarks.
Oh, so Kyle Rittenhouse drives or pedals his butt over to another "hot" scene that has nothing to do with him and he is not empty handed or carrying other signs of peace unless you consider his weapon a "peace-keeper" and then he gets to have a lawyer claim "self-defense." Do you know how ignorant that sounds? There were officials on the scene.
Was Rittenhouse deputized? Official? Or just a 'Rittenhole' with a powerful weapon messing around in another area of a state's liberty? What harm could Rittenhouse claim for even being there? What rationale gave Rittenhouse a right to be patrolling these people's 'home'?
Which ones didn't?
There were riots all over the county...look it up
Says the person who is still talking about Trump today.
Global trade is booming — just without the U.S.
The world is turning its back on globalization, free trade and multilateral institutions — or at least that’s the conventional wisdom. Inspired by the nationalism and protectionism of President Trump and spurred on by the covid-19 pandemic, politicians and commentators’ talk of bringing home supply chains and bolstering domestic production. Even without Trump, the thinking goes, this shift is likely to endure.
But how, then, should we make sense of a seismic event that took place a few weeks ago — with almost no discussion in the United States? On Nov. 15, in a virtual ceremony, 15 Asia-Pacific countries signed the world’s largest free-trade pact, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The signatory states account for 30 percent of global GDP — larger than NAFTA or the European Union. Many of the same nations had also signed, two years earlier, another big free-trade pact called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which also included Canada, Mexico, Chile and Peru. And negotiations are underway to conclude a China-Japan-South Korea trade agreement as well as a China-E.U. investment treaty . And in 2018, African nations formed a continent-wide free-trade area .
The United States had spearheaded the TPP, but Trump withdrew the United States and sat idly by while the rest of the Asia-Pacific region barreled ahead with integration. Far from “pivoting to Asia,” as Barack Obama called for, America has turned inward.
That, of course, is entirely in keeping with Trump’s professed strategy of economic nationalism, a core component of his worldview. He campaigned for the presidency vowing to address what he saw as the scandal of the U.S. trade deficit, which to him was the greatest symbol of the country’s disastrous policies. His trade adviser, Peter Navarro, predicted that the deficit would be eliminated within a few years of Trump taking office. In fact, under Trump, the trade deficit has gone up . It is now on track to reach its highest level in 12 years.
By any measure, Trump’s trade policies have failed. He promised to bring manufacturing jobs roaring back. In fact, the percentage of jobs in manufacturing has stayed roughly the same since he came into office. He claimed that foreign countries such as China and Mexico would pay for his tariffs. In fact, studies show that American consumers have footed most of the bill . He promised that China would buy many more American goods. In fact, China is importing less from the United States than it was in 2017.
What jobs have been preserved have come at a staggering cost. For every job saved in the steel industry, for example, U.S. businesses and consumers have had to pay $900,000 . Farmers’ incomes have been sustained only because of massive subsidies to them — tens of billions of dollars — to compensate for their lost markets in China. Were Trump to have “saved” more American jobs, he would have bankrupted the country.
The pandemic, far from making the case for onshoring, actually shows its dangers. When covid-19 hit, countries around the world faced severe shortages of vital items, from masks to cotton swabs. Thanks to foreign producers, most of these demands were met within a few weeks or months. (There is now a global glut of masks , and prices have plummeted.) The vaccine race is a massive global endeavor, involving scientists, technicians and manufacturing facilities fanned across the world. It would be inconceivable to develop and produce billions of vaccine doses without global supply chains .
Some have suggested in the face of this pandemic that the United States should onshore production of key medical equipment and supplies. But how do we know which ones to prioritize? Will the next global crisis be the same as the last one? What if the future catastrophe comes in the form of a non-airborne disease — or a tsunami? We would have subsidized huge industries only to find that we were fighting the last war. It makes sense to maintain some strategic reserves of medical supplies. It is also wise to ensure that the United States is not totally dependent for any key product on one country, especially China. But taking cautionary measures like these hardly spells the end of globalization.
The abject failure of Trump’s trade wars does not seem to have registered in Washington, where Democrats and Republicans alike seem to want to continue his approach, just more intelligently than he did. In a smart essay in Foreign Affairs, Shannon O’Neil points to what the real answer may be . “Rather than too much free trade, the United States has too little: U.S. companies have preferential access to less than ten percent of the world’s consumers. Mexico and Canada, in contrast, maintain such access to over 50 percent of global markets.”
The United States is now virtually the only country in the advanced industrial world following a protectionist path. Most other countries understand that the best way to raise incomes at home is to expand markets abroad, buying and selling from the rest of the world. The United States has 4 percent of the world’s population. It needs to trade with the other 96 percent if it wants to improve its citizens’ lives.
Optimist!
See the linked seed in the following comment (# 4. 3)
Indeed, some have made a real change.
In some cases surprisingly so-- look at what McConnell said:
McConnell said Trump “and other powerful people” fed “lies” to the mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol
I was speaking to someone who went to a 3% militia group meeting a few months back, just to check it out and see what it was like. Said he was surprised. Apparently, this chapter isn't very political. There was some event that was supposed to happen at the state capitol (not the present situation) and the leader of the group told its members they didn't want anything to do with it. Based on other things the guy told me, it sounded more like a prepper group than a 3% militia group. I wish he had asked them why they considered themselves 3%.
of course.
None of the rioters were MAGA-terrorists.
In fact-- they were all members of . . . ANTIFA!
/sarc
Nothing I said even remotely connects to what you said. You've just posted a straw man. Do you think that is helpful? Or honest?
Yes. To both.
I have heard apologetics for the most extreme groups so many times. And in this case claims that the terrorists in the capitol were not MAGA people but Antifa. Or at least a lot of them were.(Which makes no sense...Antifa and Right wing groups working together towards a common goal?)
My comment was not aimed specifically at you-- but I've been hearing rationalizations and apologies for really extreme (and delusional) cult-like groups for years (well, decades actually). And its almost always the same excuses...
Then maybe you should consider starting a new thread rather than unhelpfully and untruthfully making it seem as if my post was claiming what you said it was. I mean, if you have to create a strawman in order to make some point, how valid can your point be in the first place?
But how can you ever expect to start a thread on a social media site such as NT and be guaranteed that the only people allowed to comment are those that totally agree with you?
(And if you could limit discussion-- wouldn't that be considered an egregious "limiting of free speech"? Which is a apparently a key issue for many people here...)
Then maybe you should consider starting a new thread rather than unhelpfully and untruthfully making it seem as if my post was claiming what you said it was.
Well, I could reply that maybe you should consider deleting this thread where you are unhelpfully and untruthfully attacking people who have a different opinion then you do, false making it seem that my post was claiming what you said it wasI could say that-- but I won't!!!
I mean, if you have to create a strawman in order to make some point, how valid can your point be in the first place.
Well again, I could false start accusing you of the same thing-- but again, I won't.
(Just my own personal preference of course-- but I prefer an open and honest discussion in which everyone if entitled to express their opinion-- even if it differs from that of the seeder. And to respect the opinion of others. Without falsely accusing them of lying, using "strawmen", and other personal attacks. But then-- maybe that's just me!
)
So, you're just going to keep doing it. Fine. I get it but I don't have time for this.
That is the rabbit from Donnie Darko isn't it? I think I have asked that before but can't be sure.
Are you asking about my avatar? If so, no. I've never seen Donnie Darko. This is a decorative dragon adorning the top of a column among a number of identical columns in some painting. I sort of have a thing for dragons. This has been my avatar for places like this for a couple of decades now and I never change it. Part of what makes me 'conservative' I guess : )
And now I have to look up this rabbit. Nope. Definitely not the rabbit.
I am a total dragon lover.
on your avatar.
In the song delivered by Bonnie Raitt, "the SYSTEM," gave the insurrectionists and wannabees: Something to talk about. That is, the roundup has begun with purpose, the backlash has begun with purpose, the SYSTEM was not shocked and awed and reacted with purpose, and the recovery was 'healed over' with purpose. Moreover, the Agitator-in-Chief simply ran out of time and steam for anymore rank displays after a second impeachment landed immediately.
Yes-- but didn't he also do it with purpose?
I reckon he did it with purpose, too! (Smile.)
Not sure what to think about the no-show. I wasn't very convinced of a plot to show up at all 50 state capitols to begin with
Well, I also didn't think it would happen in all 50 states. As you stated, all 50 states-- all of them!
Every single one of them?
Highly unlikely..
But it seems likely that there were plans to do that in several states. And that the reason it didn't happen was do to swift action byt he FBI. They quickly identified-- and charged-- a few the terrorists. And equally important-- they publicized it. So people who intended to repeat on a state level what happened at our national Capitol got scared when they saw the police forces meant business!
Apparently a lot of them thought they could actually get away with it-- as strange as it may seem.
Some really gullible people...who had a shock when their identity was actually discovered-- and they were actually arrested for breaking the law!
On the 6th, most did get away with it.
A lot of those "most" will eventually be ID'd and will face justice.
I think Paula is right, they will get the majority of these morons - the majority of it was filmed - they filmed themselves - they admitted everywhere what they did - they're getting turned in - they THOUGHT they'd get away with it, No problemo, BUT THEY WERE WRONG.
I MEAN, THEY PLOTTED IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA FERCHRISSAKES! THEN POSTED ALL THEIR SELFIES DOING IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA
A couple hundred may go down. A small percentage.
It may take time, but it will happen.
You'd think people would be happy that violence and chaos didn't happen. Instead we have people here mocking those who let peace reign and are calling them cowards. That's kinda twisted.
You mean shit talking those who were promising it was gonna happen, and that Jan 6 was a warmup? Fuck yeah I am going to insult and mock those pussies. they are cowards and fuck them, when the rubber meets the road they decide not to show up.
And calling a bitch a bitch isn't twisted, it is just that good ol American straight talklin attitude you love so much.
While I wouldn't use your language, I agree with the sentiment to a point. But, this is more or less why I posted this discussion. How much of the security reaction was because of talk and how much was actual actionable threat? I have no idea but I would really like to know. The reason can be seen right here in NT. So many here speak as if they know when they don't. And so, it becomes a hammer they may not be justified in wielding. Certainly the Dems aren't going to care too much in an actual answer because it is a useful political tool. Sort of like continuously pushing the terrorist and sedition angle when, to date, there doesn't seem to be anyone who's been charged with those crimes. Instead, the people arrested have been charged with other crimes more in line with rioting.
What I would like is the truth, not propaganda. I'm not attempting to diminish what happened on the 6th. I'm not one of those people who will say they all should be locked up and the key thrown away simply because they're "the enemy". I think that's a bad road to go down. I'd much prefer the rule of law rather than the rule of emotions. Every person who was there and broke the law, even if it was just by being there, needs to answer for what they did. But only for what they actually did. If the applicable law is terrorism and sedition, which I'm not sure that fits, but fine, prosecute them for that. If not, prosecute them for what the law says they did. Because a nation led around by its emotions is probably headed for a pretty bad place.
I prefer to be happy if I can get an asshole to not be an asshole. I see no point in continuing with the trash talk.
How many deaths do you need before a threat should be taken seriously?
Where in what I posted did I indicate anything even remotely like not taking the threat seriously? Where did I say security was a wasted effort? When you can find that, then I'll consider answering your question.
We have to stop being such meanies to tRump and his supporters!!!!!!!!!!!
We must heal...
(They may do as they please...)
You know, as a character on screen I love me some John Wayne. Nowadays, I strikes me that had "John Wayne" in reality been what some conservative re-imagine him to be if I could even look him in the face without frustration!
Donald Trump acted on raw emotion. Thus, the inconsistencies and bald-faced lying. That president hamstrung science and critical-thinking. One has to ask if Donald ever even heard of the latter. As I type this, Dr. Fauci is holding a press address all by himself -(Press Secretary Jen Psaki is present) in the White House (Washington) Press Room. I have no doubt he feels he will be heard for his science and medical expertise and the politics be damned. Thus, it is an easier, more confident, relaxed delivery.
That quote speaks volumes on its own behalf about attitudes and emotions!
Drakkonis, it is time to look outside of your blindspot for Donald Trump: the man has been exposed as a rank fraud. Skepticism is a good thing, but not doing some soul-searching and self-examination at this point about the Trump 'way' is defeatist.
Why do you think being happy about the lack of violence,
and
mocking these people who'd been boasting about the upcoming violence,
must be separate?
We are mocking their buffoonery, not encouraging it.
The dog didn't bite you today. You think you'd be glad. Instead you want to kick the dog and tell him what a chicken he is for not biting you. Good luck with that approach!
Has the dog been threatening to bite me for months? If not, your example is ludicrous.
His examples always are
Does it matter?
Only if you want to make sense when replying to my comment.
Speaking of twisting . . . [Deleted.] . . I mean spinning . . . .
I am very glad there was no more violence and no attack on the inauguration as some right wing conspiracy theorist internet trolls had promised. However, I do not think there should be any sort of praise for those seditionists who apparently backed down, and claiming they "let peace reign" sounds a lot like praise. Do we praise terrorists when they are stopped or decide not to attack for fear of reprisal or capture? I think the ones who "let peace reign" were the thousands of men and women in our national guard who protected the event and made it virtually impossible for any domestic terrorist to even contemplate attacking the peaceful transition of power. I think the ones we should praise were those capital police who put their lives on the line protecting our elected representatives and putting themselves in between a mob of rabid right wing seditionists and those attempting to carry out their constitutional duty of certifying a free and fair election. They are the real heroes, not the piece of shit right wing insurrectionists who were scared off from making a promised second attempt at overthrowing our government, shredding the constitution or even interrupting the transition process for their own selfish self-serving ends.
I am going to agree with you. Frankly, yesterday evening, when I arrived on this article, I wanted to mock those people who wasted time, effort, supplies, and mind-power on redirecting the states and federal capitols. I checked myself! Because I am glad that we are yet a 'whole' country and cooler heads are so far prevailing. (Thank you, Lord!) For the last thing this country needs is more 'combat,' physical or mental. Our challenges are right on top of us already, crying out for our stewardship over what's ailing us already!
In my opinion the far far right shot their load on January 6th. Alot of people that supported a peaceful demonstration on inauguration day probably decided not to be part of the shit show before security was brought to the level it was. The small group of far far right agitators most likely were deterred by the show of security but I would guess that was not many people. Of course we will never know for sure.
At least maybe democratic governors learned how to stop their cities from burning by antifa. Actually arresting and charging agitators would go a long way in keeping the agitators home and then let the peaceful demonstrations continue after the agitators have decided it may be in their own best interest to stay home. But probably not.
Your whataboutism and denial are so tiresome
It's called an opinion, something that the seeder asked for. If you don't like it I suggest you stop reading them. Heaven forbid I cause you any undue stress. Maybe a little time in your safe space basement with a support puppy would also help.
I know exactly what it's called.
Your insults and denial and deflection are duly noted.
Normal response when of course you have nothing to back up your claims
Says the person that has comments like "I'm going to go and take a (fill in the name of the NT member here).
Not from what I saw. The average ordinary Trumpists remained on Capitol grounds until expelled by law enforcement. They very obviously did not feel that anything wrong was happening, and even less that they themselves were part of any wrongdoing.
I don't know the exact timing of events or how aware people in the street were to what was going on or how many departed when they sensed what was happening. It is easy to see when you are watching TV, not so easy to see what is going on while you are around the area but not actually causing the violence. I am really referring to the next day when it was clear about what happened and then deciding they didn't want to be part of any possible upcoming shit show
"Not from what I saw. The average ordinary Trumpists remained on Capitol grounds until expelled by law enforcement. They very obviously did not feel that anything wrong was happening, and even less that they themselves were part of any wrongdoing."
I believe these nutjobs seriously believed that there would be no consequences because their dear leader 'president' told them to do it and told them that it would result in him becoming President again. He told them he would walk with them to the Capitol and he didn't, just watched it from the White House were he was free from danger, after he lit the fire and then poured on the gasoline.
You are correct, the majority of tRump's mob DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL THEY WERE FORCED TO - at least TWO HOURS AFTER THEY FIRST STORMED THE CAPITOL! IT'S A REVOLUTION!
golly, this century's revolutionaries sure are a bunch of limp dick wimps ...
Just like their former dear leader
I don't give much credit for their behavior after the troops arrived. What counts is what they did when unconstrained.
They stayed until the soldiers removed them.
Yup, they stayed there vandalizing, looting, stealing, shitting, pissing everywhere - no one budged until they were forced out, HOURS LATER
As far as the ones physically in the capital I agree. The ones that were not in the capital but there to protest are the people that probably decided they did not want to possibly get caught up in a similar situation and decided to stay away from any other future protests.
So... only... ten thousand?
I missed it, you have anything stating it was 10,000? And even if all the right wing nut jobs were there rioting that is a few thousand compared to the 70 million people that voted for him. That would be 00014285714 percent. Not exactly enough to put all trump voters into the same bucket.
[deleted]
True, at 8PM well after the 6PM curfew the police were slow walking the crowd out of the area and started arresting the lingerers at 10pm.
Slowest round up I ever saw.
Definitely reminds me of the way cops handle BLM.
Easy enough for the liberals: Stop gunning down and terrorizing Black Americans in street justice fashion using policing authorities. And as for some conservatives stop trying to justify street justice and invalidating the par for the course aftermath! If some people are being disproportionately disenfranchised from the only opportunity they have to live, there will be people who stand up to speak for them through protest, riot, and at the extremes worse.