Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Foxtrol

Donald Trump wrote: »

Jesus Christ. What is your point? What is your biggest takeaway from the shocking scenes witnessed at the Capitol?

A) That it's not fair that they didn't arrest more white "protestors" at the Capitol.

They shouldn't have arrested as many people at some BLM protest in the past.
or

C) What we saw at the Capitol was a shocking attempt at insurrection, encouraged directly and implicitly by senior politicians and administration officials.

I'm going with C. You appear to be more concerned with A or B. Not sure which. Maybe both?

Why are people trying to deflect away from the actual fundamental seriousness of the incident with virtue signalling woke shite. It was an attack on the US institutions of democracy. Not an exercise in tallying arrests by skin colour.

All that other stuff has a place. But it's not relevant here. This was a serious attack on the US system from within. Serious in ideology if not in physical damage (relatively speaking)

A, B, and C.

A played a huge part in C. Some cops did a heroic job while being assaulted and murdered by these white terrorists while some of their colleagues just let protesters walk by them, gave them directions, took selfies, helped them clean out their eyes, walked them down the stairs, and held doors for them as they walked away from their crimes.

If you don't think many cops standing by allowing an attempted coup isn't worth highlighting then it points to your naivety.

As far a B, that just highlights how soft the cops were and how much worse the situation in C was.

MisterAnarchy

listermint wrote: »

Ya because twitter was unknown prior to trump.


.. just saying like.

Trump has helped raise Twitters profile dramatically in the last 5 years.

Alot of people wouldnt have heard of Twitter before.
Over 27 per cent of Twitter accounts follow Trump.

Cody montana

Donald Trump wrote: »

I wonder if he got out the door with it?

It was on sale on ebay apparently.

Cause America.

The Raging Bile Duct

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Trump has helped raise Twitters profile dramatically in the last 5 years.

Alot of people wouldnt have heard of Twitter before.

Do you actually believe that? Smh...

exaisle

salmocab wrote: »

Most people don’t understand what free speech means. It’s never meant you can say what you want when you want where you want with no consequences.

Good point. It's being able to say what you want when you want where you want, but not necessarily doing so.
The problem is that people are as free to spread lies as the truth.

Some posters here seem to think that Twitter owes Trump but actually it's the other way around. Without the platform,Trump couldn't spread his rantings so efficiently.

While Twitter have banned Trump, my opinion is that it's five or six years too late and that they must bear some responsibility for the mess that the United States finds itself in.

Endintheclowns

Hedgehod55 wrote: »

Imagine being an Irish person on an Irish website and thinking Trump won? That is the type of cult following he has. It's genuinely sad.

I find it genuinely sad people have so much invested emotionally in what Trump does.

For Forks Sake

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes. "Free speech" basically refers to the concept/right that the state cannot restrict you.



It does not remove any responsibilities or repercussions for you from what you say

Indeed.

Donald Trump

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Aye, the 'falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' example. Speech that is both dangerous and false is not protected under the first amendment. Trump's rhetoric since the election is a prime example of false and dangerous speech.

I know it is off topic, but was there ever a similar UK concept?


I'm wondering how it would have worked in terms of the SF ban?


Because of no written constitution maybe?

The Tetrarch

Hedgehod55 wrote: »

Imagine being an Irish person on an Irish website and thinking Trump won? That is the type of cult following he has. It's genuinely sad.

Ever hear the expression "tongue in cheek"?

sydthebeat

completedit wrote: »

There clearly is Orwellian elements to censorship of an idealogy that doesn't fit in with the narrative pushed by companies who dominate the discourse of our society. This is now ever more prominent in this digital age we are entering. Just because it doesn't fit perfectly with the story doesn't negate it as a descriptor of what's happening. I've read the book.

Incitement to violence is not an "ideology"

Try harder, try better

joseywhales

I mean would it have been too much of an escalation if the police had instituted shoot to kill for anyone within the perimeter of the building? Would it have been a tragedy if say 30 rioters had been shot dead. Surely they gave up their right to life by attacking police lines. I think it would have been an effective deterrent, if you start to see your friends dropping cold, I think everyone would leave, perhaps only 5 would have to die, to make the picture clear.

The Raging Bile Duct

exaisle wrote: »

Good point. It's being able to say what you want when you want where you want, but not necessarily doing so.
The problem is that people are as free to spread lies as the truth.

That's not really the point at all.

Hedgehod55

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Ever hear the expression "tongue in cheek"?

I wasn't sure if it was. Sarcasm can be hard to detect online. And given much of the rhetoric here, there are definitely people here who it applies to.

Foxtrol

Sarcozies wrote: »

Race batey nonsense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ks0iu5/the_exact_first_moment_of_the_storming_of_the_us/

This is a video of them first breaking through -- look at the security just 'letting them in'. Ridiculous. I'd love to see what people on their phones right now would have done to stop the flood of people breaking through -- a few judo chops perhaps.

This is all after they've had months and months of vitriolic abuse (all cops are bastards hash tags to retired St. Louis police Capt. David Dorn lying on the ground in a pool of his own blood while people step over him to snag a second hand TV.from his friends shop he was trying to protect) demands of defunding from not just huge swaths of the American people, but from some of the highest echelons of the democratic party. "Defund the police" to "oh no where are the police"

Meanwhile during the summer we have riots, buildings and businesses set ablaze with tons of small businesses never going to recover. What was the the reaction from hugely influential celebrities, mainstream media and many, many politicians? Encouragement and agreement. In Seattle, they were given their own little zone where police were instructed to leave the area and leave them off. Imagine a mayor in America telling the police to get out of a city area as it's now Trump land inhabited by trump fanatics just doing their thing.

This all sets a precedent for all other mobs in the future to justify their idiotic behaviour in the name of their perceived political injustice.

That is what they Capitol police did to one branch of the government. It is a complete false equivalence.

Some cops did their job heroically, like in the video you posted, while others stood back and let it happen and palled around with the mob while their colleagues were being beaten, abused and murdered. Due to either complete incompetence or collusion the events of this week were allowed to happen by the police.

If cops believed these white terrorists were their friends and supporters then hopefully how they were treated this week wakes them up to how deluded they are. MAGA and the far right only support the police or military when they are doing what they like (like beating up black people) or bowing down to their commands.

Donald Trump

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Ever hear the expression "tongue in cheek"?

Tongue in arse cheeks?


:pac:

newmember2

duploelabs wrote: »

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Trump will probably hold his own presidential inauguration.
He won, and that what happens after you win.

He didn't win in reality though did he? Just trump's delusions and narcissistic tenancies on display

Humour has no place on a public forum!!!

MisterAnarchy

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Trump has helped raise Twitters profile dramatically in the last 5 years.

Alot of people wouldnt have heard of Twitter before.
Over 27 per cent of Twitter accounts follow Trump.

That's not true though, while he was most definitely marketing somewhat to them. They had plenty of prominent users that had brought positive attention to them. Eg one of the biggest endorsers of Twitter when it took off was Stephen Fry. The issue of extreme voices was that Twitter tended to allow for extreme voices to prosper for many years eg Tommy Robinson, Alex Jones and the most prominent Trump. It just hit a point in recent years where those voices became an active detractor for the likes of Twitter and Facebook. Coupled with stories like Cambridge analytica.

I'd suspect Trump was viewed more and more by their platform as negative pr.

salmocab

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Aye, the 'falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' example. Speech that is both dangerous and false is not protected under the first amendment. Trump's rhetoric since the election is a prime example of false and dangerous speech.

A couple of years ago there was a thread I think about religious beliefs and someone said a guy getting sacked for publicly saying gays were going to hell and should repent was having his free speech stopped. The point made was he could still have that belief he just no longer had the job.
The example I used was calling your mother a witch and been written out of her will. You can’t afterwards claim she had no right to take you out of the will because of what you called her as you were exercising free speech.
People who shout free speech generally don’t understand what it means.

Dyr

I thought the likely lads on here were all down with protestors attacking federal buildings?


Funny that.

duploelabs

newmember? wrote: »

Humour has no place on a public forum!!!

It's like the trumpets saying that trump was being sarcastic/telling a joke as an excuse when he said something idiotic

Tony EH

Tea drinker wrote: »

AOC saying protests should be "making people uncomfortable"
https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1334184644707758080?s=20


https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-chris-cuomo-blasted-for-suggesting-protesters-dont-have-to-be-peaceful
CNN anchor Chris Cuomo raised eyebrows on Tuesday night when he suggested that the George Floyd protesters don't have to be "polite and peaceful."


Yugoslaveque commentary about cleansing from MSM
https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-movement-trump-supporters-following-capitol-riots
The fact is that getting rid of Trump is the easy part. Cleansing the movement he commands, or getting rid of what he represents to so many Americans, is going to be something else."

There's a difference between making people "uncomfortable" and protesting about your grievances and making people dead because your guy lost an election.

Cody montana

Bambi wrote: »

I thought the likely lads on here were all down with protestors attacking federal buildings?


Funny that.

Show a single post supporting this.

The Raging Bile Duct

salmocab wrote: »

A couple of years ago there was a thread I think about religious beliefs and someone said a guy getting sacked for publicly saying gays were going to hell and should repent was having his free speech stopped. The point made was he could still have that belief he just no longer had the job.
The example I used was calling your mother a witch and been written out of her will. You can’t afterwards claim she had no right to take you out of the will because of what you called her as you were exercising free speech.
People who shout free speech generally don’t understand what it means.

Yeah, a company firing you to protect themselves from negative publicity created by you saying homophobic or racist crap on Twitter is not an infringement of your right to free speech. It's odd that people can't understand that.

Tony EH

Sir Oxman wrote: »

I like the JRE and I'm most definitely left.

So is Joe Rogan, according to him anyway.

I see nowt wrong with his show for the most part. He has some really interesting guests on and there's an actual conversation being had. That's more than can be said for most "chat shows" in American media, which are often just plugging opportunities for guests to hock their latest rubbish.

He does have some right feckin ejits on as well though. That Eddie Bravo fool is a waste of space and the Alex Jones meltdown episode was indicative of just how crazy that git is. IIRC, he said Hitler had been given iPhone technology from aliens. :pac:

Dyr

Cody montana wrote: »

Show a single post supporting this.

Using boards dog**** search function? Good luck with that

here's the result of 10 seconds on google search, our pal Foxtrol, thanked by protonmike:

Big win for the protesters. Phased withdrawal of the federal forces in Portland.

Likely a sign that the Trump team have finally realised that inciting chaos and then showing a complete inability to stop it isn't a smart election move, especially when their response instead provides images of dragging people into unmarked cars and shooting peaceful moms and kids in the face.

https://twitter.com/OregonGovBrown/s...733018113?s=20

duploelabs

Tony EH wrote: »

So is Joe Rogan, according to him anyway.

I see nowt wrong with his show for the most part. He has some really interesting guests on and there's an actual conversation being had. That's more than can be said for most "chat shows" in American media, which are often just plugging opportunities for guests to hock their latest rubbish.

He does have some right feckin ejits on as well though. That Eddie Bravo fool is a waste of space and the Alex Jones meltdown episode was indicative of just how crazy that git is. IIRC, he said Hitler had been given iPhone technology from aliens. :pac:

Joe Rogan is just Alex Jones for those who think they're 'woke'

completedit

So should those Mohammad pictures have been banned or not. Because by the same token that was an incitement to hatred yet the free speech advocates will trot out the old "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it"

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/CuriouslyEmily/status/1347845894528528385?s=19

Broken down into simple terms for the obvious few here who need to read it.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

I honestly love people who use Orwellian when in all likelihood, if Orwell were alive he would not care about a leader being banned on social media. He lambasted writers like HG Wells back in the day for not taking fascism seriously as a danger to the global system. It's fair to assume he would have despised Trump and his ilk, you'd most likely be calling him woke.

Always funny to hear right wingers talk about Orwell, when they haven't the first clue about the man's politics.

A moneyman (Trump) has found his cash cow in his followers. Make no mistake, he's not going anywhere after the presidency and will continue to milk followers for all they have, even if it further destabilses America. I'd say he can't believe his luck at how easy it is to make money off them.

He doesn't give a **** as he likely won't be around to see the real fallout.