Yes, Democrats Are Blowing It
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
There is some truth in this David Brooks column (“The Jan. 6 Committee Has Already Blown It”) on the January 6 hearings, which are going to be — stupidly and wrongly — more focused on the Capitol riot than on the actual attempted coup d’état of which that riot was a minor but dramatic part.
Brooks argues that the Democrats should be using these hearings to ask bigger and more meaningful questions about the state of American democracy, regime instability, creeping authoritarianism, and more. But should implies can , and the Democrats really can’t do that.
The reason the Democrats can’t make something useful out of these hearings — besides the fact that they wish to use them only for campaign purposes — is that the Democrats preemptively legitimized January 6. They didn’t know they were doing it at the time, but Democrats spent the summer of 2020 legitimizing “mostly peaceful” riots, arson, and murder during the George Floyd riots.
Denounce whataboutism all you like, but as a political matter, whataboutism matters and always has. It is very difficult to argue that political violence is unacceptable when you have spent so many years accepting it.
And, of course, Democrats have attempted to delegitimize every presidential election they have lost from 2000 onward. The main organizing idea of Democratic politics from 2016 to 2020 was that the 2016 election was somehow stolen from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who insisted that Donald Trump was an “illegitimate” president. They didn’t know it at the time, but Democrats spent those years building the political defense of the 2020 attempt to overturn the election of Joe Biden.
What David Brooks does not seem to understand is that Democrats didn’t blow it this week — they have been blowing it since November 2016. This is an example of Williamson’s Second Law: “When Democrats are in power, they act like they’ll never be out of power, and when Republicans are out of power, they act like they’ll never be in.” One need not make the morally illiterate case that Democratic shenanigans somehow excuse January 6 — they don’t — to appreciate that it matters what kind of example you set. Democrats think that they’re never going to have a Supreme Court nominee who gets the kind of shameful treatment they gave Brett Kavanaugh, and they were surprised when Mitch McConnell used his parliamentary powers to do quietly to Merrick Garland what Democrats did with great fanfare to Robert Bork. Democrats spent 200 years gerrymandering the hell out of every legislative district they could, and started complaining only when Republicans got better at it.
Republicans do not learn quickly or easily, but they do eventually learn.
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
"When Democrats are in power, they act like they’ll never be out of power,"
As Williamson says "Democrats think that they’re never going to have a Supreme Court nominee who gets the kind of shameful treatment they gave Brett Kavanaugh, and they were surprised when Mitch McConnell used his parliamentary powers to do quietly to Merrick Garland what Democrats did with great fanfare to Robert Bork. Democrats spent 200 years gerrymandering the hell out of every legislative district they could, and started complaining only when Republicans got better at it." They support claims of election theft when they lose and rioting when they perceived in that their political interests. They want to get rid of the filuibuster today, but tomorrow they'll call it a pillar of democracy
Silly article that reached its conclusion before the author started writing it.
Talk about partisanship.
[deleted]
yeah, I am. It's why its impossible for anyone with a better memory than a goldfish to take the Democrats seriously. They don't even try anymore to keep up the pretense they believe what they say. Biden's chosen spokeswoman is a grade a election conspiracist
You're onto something there.
[Deleted]
Funny how you never comment on John's article like that. They are as partisan and predictable as the day is long.
I don't have all day for NT.
Some comments need to go unaddressed by me.
Although I might be inclined to criticize far left public figures like AOC from the center left I have no desire to get deep into the weeds arguing with someone I mostly agree with here in the comments.
There are times I find small areas of agreements with conservatives and I give voice to those, but I am not a conservative. I am a cautious liberal/progressive. And by cautious I mean something like, "let's not do it all at once and blow up the economy and lord knows what else with unintended consequences."
With the partisan BS you seed. Just go the fuck away. [Deleted]
That describes every single article you post.
Or talk about hypocrisy. You are the most prolific, most partisan seeder on this forum. You have zero grounds to complain about anybody else.
Democrats aren't blowing it. They just have little chance of reaching anybody who thinks the Democratic Party is a vast conspiracy to take America away from the hardworking, deserving, white people who made America Great in the first place. (Yawn.)
Show a video of Oath Keepers in stack formation climbing through a freshly broken window and those people's eyes glaze over. To them this is finally people doing something to take America back for them.
Lol... read a poll. The only group the republicans have lost ground with are white people. In the left wing fever swamps, are all the latinos white Supremacists now?
Ask Enrique Tarrio.
He has a point.
Sure. Democrats should have been better in telling their own to make sure that the protests needed to be peaceful. Truth is the party was more worried about its left flank on Twitter than losing the center on election day. They believed polls that told them they had an advantage going in to Nov 2020 that did not exist.
But there is a big difference between people protesting in the streets demanding change and people breaking into the Capitol biuilding during a joint session of Congress.
One is rioting and the other is sedition.
Neither is peaceful or defensible. But Democrats on the Left have spent years lying about and defending riots. They contributed to a political climate where people think violence is the answer.
Then you have no problem with Chuck Schumer being brought up on charges of inciting violence against a Supreme Court justice, as he said "I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Here we are only a few months later and sure enough some idiot decides to drive cross country with the intent to kill Kavanaugh because of what Schumer said about overturning Roe. .
Liberals like to say that word have consequences.
After all, Trump saying come "peacefully and patriotically" is inciting violence, then Schumer saying what he did sure as hell is.
This is no difference, if most liberals have any credibility left.
Not just that. They should have been better on the local and state level about stopping the rioting.
It doesn't matter why. Any description of "why" is just an excuse.
You can't condone political violence for months or even years and then all of a sudden decide you're upset about it.
Sorry, that just doesn't fly. Everybody knows the real comparison is "one is liberals and the other is Trump supporters".
Rioters in Seattle declared independence from the United States, took over US territory and held it for a month. Authorities stood by and did nothing. Local residents were extorted based on their race. Women were raped. At least one person was murdered. Authorities (Democrats) still did nothing. There was no congressional commission set up to study that. No inquiries. It's not on national television.
So basically "sedition" is only a problem when certain people do it. Rioting is only a problem when certain people do it. Political violence in general is only a problem when certain people do it. When that happens, the rule of law no longer exists in society.
I don't have a problem locking up every one of these Jan 6 idiots for a very long time.... provided.... each and every one shares a cell with a BLM/Antifa/CHAZ idiot. Political rioting is either a problem or it's not.
Both are prosecutable for what they are.
No. That wasn't what I mean to say. Not what I really meant to say.
I said rioting and sedition are both prosecutable for what they are.
They are unrelated activities and one has nothing to do with the other. This is not a hostage negotiation with Putin.
If the authorities did nothing then then the rioters would still control that piece of Seattle.
It took a month. More than enough time to firmly establish the double standard.
Not if you have a highly toxic and partisan AG and DOJ at the federal level. Then AG's and DA's at the local and state level that are nothing more than criminal loving George Soros hacks. What you end up with is a two tier justice system where leftists walk; and those on the right face the full punishment of the law. We have a third world legal system.
So they should have waited a month to evict the rioters from the Capitol?
Or... if we're not complete morons... we can agree they should have evicted and arrested the CHAZ nutjobs immediately.
I'm not sure the DC rioters were forcibly evicted anyway. Didn't most of them just leave after a while?
After killing a few people and making congress flee their attempt to certify the election?
Do you REALLY see parallels here or is the world just a word game to you?
Ashli Babbitt was the only person killed during the protest and she was shot by Capital Police LT Michael Byrd.
Yet one hundred seventeen law enforcement officers were wounded by Trump's rioters on January 6th, 2020. A total of seven people ultimately died in connection to January 6th.
So what you are saying is that, YES there was only ONE person killed during the protest. The rest were not.
What I am stressing is that police defending the Capital used amazing restraint when violently attacked by a mob they could have rightfully mowed down if they were not ordered not to...
Did you stress that restraint of Law Enforcement in the Kenosha, Minneapolis and Baltimore riots when they were attacked by a mob they could have rightfully mowed down (without being ordered to)?
I don't recall it.
What about.....(attempted deflection).
I think you mean "after getting a few of themselves killed". Deservedly so, BTW. Still, they left of their own accord.
How do you not see the parallels?
Either violent lawlessness is OK or it's not. It doesn't suddenly become OK because it's committed by people who agree with you politically.
Democrats everywhere want to talk about "the violent insurrection"... as long as it's not any of the ones liberals perpetrated and Democrats enabled. Well, you can't do that and hope to have any credibility.
She may as well shot herself in the throat attempting to crawl through a broken window protected by an armed officer charged with protecting congress on the inside of that room. She had no first amendment right to crawl through a window the crowd she was in had just broken. She was engaged in a violent criminal act and she reaped what she had sewn.
Only Ashli Babbit, her fellow idiot traitors, and Trump are to blame for her death.
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. Thousands of people there, she was the only death. If it were as bad as you claim it to be, would be more people shot.
Maybe more people SHOULD have been shot.
I would like to clarify that it is sad that anyone at all was hurt on Jan 6. These Capitol police not only showed an awful lot of restraint but it is not the kind of engagement with the public they are normally called upon to do. On most days this sort of police job involves a lot of looking at IDs, routine security checks, and pointing people in the right direction. On January 6 they were slipping in their own colleagues' blood.
That is a lie.
That's all he has plus projection and denial. And completely fact free comments.
Oh thank goodness. I thought I would go all day without seeing another vacuous, trolly comment.
Denounce whataboutism all you like, but as a political matter, whataboutism matters and always has. It is very difficult to argue that political violence is unacceptable when you have spent so many years accepting it.
Never has a political party been so out of touch with the American people, as the current Democrats are. I'd categorize most of them as a "basket of despicables".
Any by the way, the Dems are losing large numbers in about every demographic, especially Blacks and Hispanics
It’s the only argument you’ll ever hear against this. “Stop talking! That’s whataboutism.” It’s only whataboutism when you refuse to acknowledge what is happening right now and instead point to something else as a deflection. But when you can acknowledge that 1/6 was wrong; when you can acknowledge that Trump was full of shit about the election being stolen, and you can still point out the hypocrisy of Democrats on the issue, that’s not whataboutism. It’s just being fair and honest.
On the issues of disputed elections, filibustered judges, election conspiracy theories, and not-so-peaceful protests, Democrats owe this country an apology at least as much as Republicans do, if not more.
Democrats conveniently overlooked the video of Ashli Babbitt being murdered by an unidentified black cop.
I think that the Capital Police showed unbelievable restraint. I amazed that more attackers weren't shot or bludgeoned,
The focus of the committee is on the insurrection; they are not trying to determine if the defenders all acted properly per protocol. Babbitt could be shown trying to force her way into a secured area and that would be relevant, but the committee has already demonstrated quite well that the Capitol was indeed violently breached.
And the fact that the insurrection went to the level that it did had nothing to do with Capital Police letting them in?..
The Capitol security was severely overwhelmed by the number of people breaking their way into the Capitol building. So if you trying to argue that the security sucked then that point is sound.
But you seem to be ... oddly ... trying to argue that the Capitol security was complicit in the insurrection. That by their inability to stop the intruders they were in some way at fault.
Is that really what you are trying to argue?
Oddly? I don’t think so. Do you think if you were the leader of a group charged with the security of something of relevant importance, in that kind of situation your decision would have been to acquiesce?
Man you are really grasping at straws. So you clearly must not approve of Trump’s refusal to for three hours in spite of the urging of advisors. Right?
How so?
I'm just asking a simple question. One that the committee isn't interested in... odd for one that calls itself the January 6 committee. Perhaps they should just call it the Trump part 4 or 5 committee?
Do you not understand the stated purpose of this committee? They are not investigating how to shore up security at the Capitol, they are investigating who is culpable for the insurrection.
So negligence or incompetence would have no bearing in culpability?
One could distort the narrative to make negligence / incompetence of Capitol security an issue but rational minds, I am certain, will see that there are those who violently breached the Capitol with the intent to disrupt the proceedings of the transfer of power and those who tried to stop them.
The forces on the ground certainly are not culpable since they did their jobs while horribly over powered. So if you want to deflect culpability away from Trump and the insurrectionists you could legally go after the individual responsible for Capitol security based on incompetence / negligence.
It should be obvious to everyone that the intentional wrongful acts were committed by Trump, his co-liars and the insurrectionists.
We're going to disagree on this one.
There are certain times in life when you look at people and go..."I'm not sure WTF you were thinking, but you surely should have expected to get shot."
This was one of those.
She had no weapon and was not a threat to the trigger happy cop.
She was participating in a riot, storming a government facility, and she knew she was breaking the law.
NT should give out prizes for comments this silly.
The cop was named:
-and-
How can I put this into terms you would understand?
He was a good guy with a gun standing his ground.
[ deleted ] Please prove where she posed any threat to the officers or Congressman departing the area?
She was executed instantaneously by Barney Fife with a gun.
Also, please notice the 3 officers that departed the area as soon as the Congressman were escorted from the Chamber? Not one of them deemed her a threat- and they had far better vantage point than Fife did.
Unless Mullin is a ghost he didn't witness the execution first hand; but on video like most others.
The fact this asshole isn't up on charges is due to it being a white Trump supporter he shot; and not an African American BLM or criminal.
In the second video it shows the heavily armed DC police coming up from behind only seconds after the shot. Guess what they were doing? Dispersing the rioters. Notice how quickly they they duck down; and the lead officer points his weapon directly in Fife's direction? Seems they didn't want to be shot by the moron either. Yet no charges pressed. Just excuses for why an unarmed protester was shot by Democrats and leftists.
Here is another article that doesn't cast the shooter in such a good light. Not exactly an exemplary officer.
If only they would have fired him as they should have!
I have seen the video at least a half dozen times. Let's get back to reality.
The doorway the mob was bashing in led directly to the floor of the House of Representatives. Once they breached that door they would be inside the House chamber in a few seconds. The cop was protecting the people in that chamber, even if they all had left it a few seconds earlier. How was he supposed to know that, or know that every one was gone?
Secondly, the door to the Speakers Lobby was locked and barricaded. If that isnt proof that the "protesters" were not allowed inside that door I dont know what would be.
Third, seven seconds before Babbitt climbs through the broken door window, one of her compatriots, a few mere feet away from her, shouts "he's got a gun" referring to the cop , who showed the mob his gun before he used it. Babbitt had seven seconds to come to her senses, and she didnt.
The cop did nothing wrong, if he let Babbitt get inside others would have followed, he would have been overrun and anyone inside the House chamber would be in danger.
Babbitt died for her illegitimate cause, which is a shame, but it was her own fault.
She was at least as big a threat as the guy who threw a plastic bag at Kyle Rittenhouse.
Please your version of reality has nothing to do with reality.
So what about the 3 DC police that were blocking the door from the rioters John? You know, the ones that departed once the Congressmen had departed the area. They were radioed to leave- so they did. If there was any danger they wouldn't have departed. Byrd could have looked behind him at any time. He didn't. Byrd could have had his radio on; why wasn't he monitoring communications? The three officers that were blocking the doors received communication that the Congressmen had departed. Why didn't Byrd. Or did he leave that in some bathroom like he did his firearm previously? To bad he couldn't have made that mistake on Jan 6th.
Didn't seem to matter to BLM and Antifa rioters when police stations and federal buildings were locked and barricaded. They still burned them; vandalized; and entered them at will. Please show where any of them were shot and killed?
Byrd, the fucking moron who never should have been given a badge, had his gun out the entire time. He didn't care who came through he was going to shoot them. As for the person that yelled- they were all yelling. It was a fucking riot! You think she, or those that were lifting her through the window heard? You really need to watch the second video where the heavily armed DC police that were dispersing the rioters had to duck down when the shot was taken. Byrd being the mighty mental midget he is never lowered his weapon. A heavily armed DC officer had to point his very scary assault rifle in Byrd's direction and motion with his arm to get Byrd to lower his weapon. Seems the idiot couldn't identify his own people.
All you have is projection, deflection, and denial. It's fucking tiresome.
Nope, it's your version of reality that has nothing to do with reality.
Are you for real? She was breaching a window broken by the crowd she was in to enter a room where congress was in session.
If it was your bedroom, would you have offered her a blanket and a cup of tea or the front of your bedroom shotgun?
Is it rude to laugh at you?
As is someone that says all you have is projection, deflection, and denial without adding anything to the discussion in the majority of their posts.
She was using both hands to climb through a broken window.....the door remained locked.
She posed no threat to the cowardly racist cop
it should've been a head shot...
I'll remember that the next time a white cop shoots an "unarmed" black.
"it should've been a head shot..."
She's still dead. The traitor got just what she deserved.
If you are trying to climb through a broken window to enter a chamber of the Capitol in the middle of a violent insurrection you put yourself at risk of being shot.
Other than blind partisanship, how do you conclude that the officer was cowardly or racist? You think this black officer shot Babbitt because she was white?
If she were carrying a weapon the three officers that were blocking the door and had ample view of the rioters would have done something about it. They all ignored her. Once the Congressmen were safely out of the area they left.
Byrd had his weapon drawn and can be seen clearly pointing it the entire time at the direction of the window. He didn't give a damn who came through he was going to shoot them. He didn't check with the three officers guarding the door. He didn't even bother to look behind him to see that the Congressmen departed- so they were not in direct danger.
If you take a look at the second video on post 7.4.1 you can clearly see that the heavily armed DC police squad was coming up from behind and dispersing the rioters when the shot was taken. They all ducked down and hold position. When the plain clothes security rushes forward to try and check on Babbit- the lead DC officer points his weapon at Byrd. He then makes a motion with his arm for Byrd to lower his weapon. The idiot was ready to fire on some his own!
As for the Justice Department. Only Democrats, who the DOJ seems beholden to, have done more to wreck this country. Our two tier justice system is the envy of third world dictators everywhere. If this had been a member BLM, or African American criminal, Byrd would already have been charged, tried, and sentenced by new. But being a white Trump supporter- the law doesn't apply.
That is probably the case; he very likely did not target an individual so clearly his actions had nothing to do with race. He was defending his ground against a violent mob. If you break into the Capitol, especially if you are part of an angry mob that has well overpowered the defending police, you should expect to be shot.
And somehow Ashli Babbitt didn't take the hint.
I had a cop point a gun at me once in my own home. He entered my rented home through an open door because a neighbor called about a breaking and entry in progress. When he arrived he wanted to know who the hell I was.
I took that gun very seriously. A wave of morbid fear passed through my body. I had only one desire within me - to do whatever it took not to get shot.
So I have a question to ask here about Ashli Babbit: What was wrong with her? Why did she think she was the unarmed American who looks at the business end of a police officer's gun and tells them to get the hell out of her way and does not get shot?
What makes you think she even saw him?
If the cop had been white and the victim black, the left's response would be very different.
Is there no end to you people?
Why was she even in the goddamned building?
She was part of a crowd that broke a window on a door to a room where congress was in session and she was climbing through the window.
Seriously - what is wrong with you?