Awol Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 It’s not terrorism per se but political violence. Violent protesters forced their way into a Federal building to disrupt the democratic process. That’s happened many times across the US in the last 8 months or so. These clowns thought they were acting at the direction of their President and commander in chief, so if you wanted to call it terrorism (which it isn’t, according to arch anti-Trumper and ex-CIA head John Brennan) it would be state sponsored terrorism, directed by the US President, against the US. That’s Pakistan levels of messed up. Not minimizing the seriousness of what happened, it was shocking political violence but not terrorism - or even a coup attempt, see thread below 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Less than an hour until King Joffrey is allowed back on Twitter. Unless they extend the ban which I guess they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2021 There is literally nothing about trump that would shock me any more. A sitting President openly embracing and encouraging the most extreme right wing and wildly out there mental fringe groups who in any other country/administration would be considered highly of dangerous and probably subject to specific police surveillance due to their dangerous activities. Literally if they started public mob hangings, impaling babies and burning witches in the street it would no longer surprise me. We all knew he would be nuts and massively unstatesmanlike but did anyone really believe from the outset it would become this bad? Surely SURELY there is a majority amongst the 73m people who voted for him who now realise he cannot ever be in power again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 1 minute ago, sne said: Less than an hour until King Joffrey is allowed back on Twitter. Unless they extend the ban which I guess they will. The conditions were deleting the tweets. We'll see if he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2021 11 hours ago, Stevo985 said: I mean I thought I explained it pretty well. But I’ll try again. Fundamentally because the data being used, or rather the data the author has reverse engineered, is absolutely and totally incorrect. That should be enough. But to try and explain it in detail. Let’s say Biden currently has exactly 1,000,000 votes and Trump has 1,000,000 votes. Exactly 50/50 A new batch of votes arrive. Let’s say it’s 50,000 votes. Because of the way the author is incorrectly extracting his data, he would assume this batch of votes was a 50/50 split (because he’s wrongly using the cumulative percentage split). So by his calculations it’s now 1,025,000 votes to Biden vs 1,025,000 votes for Trump. In reality, let’s say all 50,000 new votes were for Biden. The author has assumed half of those votes are Trump’s. But they’re not, in reality they’ve all gone to Biden. So in fact it’s 1,050,000 Biden vs 1,000,000 Trump and it’s now 51% vs 49% But the author doesn’t know this. All he can see is the top level data given on the NY Times website. This now says total votes of 2,050,000 and a split of 51%vs49% (rounded) So he does 49% of 2,050,000 and gets to 1,000,000 and thinks hang on! I’ve counted trump’s votes and he had 1,025,000 so he’s lost 25,000 votes!! And wait, Biden should only have 1,025,000 but he’s now got 1,050,000 so he’s gained 25,000 votes out of nowhere! He does that multiple times and you get the timeline set out in the original chart. Ive massively simplified the numbers so the percentages may not add up exactly, but you should hopefully get my point @villianusa just to add to this post, you said you didn't agree with my original analysis. The data used for that chart and the other charts is available online. The author posted it to show full transparency of his data, which is why the errors are so easily exposed. If you do some googling you can get to it so I would be interested to see what you think of it. You should be able to see the error he's made for yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2021 7 minutes ago, Awol said: It’s not terrorism per se but political violence. Violent protesters forced their way into a Federal building to disrupt the democratic process. That’s happened many times across the US in the last 8 months or so. These clowns thought they were acting at the direction of their President and commander in chief, so if you wanted to call it terrorism (which it isn’t, according to arch anti-Trumper and ex-CIA head John Brennan) it would be state sponsored terrorism, directed by the US President, against the US. That’s Pakistan levels of messed up. Not minimizing the seriousness of what happened, it was shocking political violence but not terrorism - or even a coup attempt, see thread below If they were brown it would be terrorism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, sne said: Less than an hour until King Joffrey is allowed back on Twitter. Unless they extend the ban which I guess they will. Genuinely thought they might remove him today, but now he’s conceded maybe they’ll just keep in isolated for 14 days. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted January 7, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Awol said: It’s not terrorism per se but political violence. Violent protesters forced their way into a Federal building to disrupt the democratic process. That’s happened many times across the US in the last 8 months or so. These clowns thought they were acting at the direction of their President and commander in chief, so if you wanted to call it terrorism (which it isn’t, according to arch anti-Trumper and ex-CIA head John Brennan) it would be state sponsored terrorism, directed by the US President, against the US. That’s Pakistan levels of messed up. Not minimizing the seriousness of what happened, it was shocking political violence but not terrorism - or even a coup attempt, see thread below It would 100% fit into the UK definition of terrorism: Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. What happened yesterday without question fills all that criteria and then some. Edited January 7, 2021 by sidcow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 1 minute ago, Stevo985 said: If they were brown it would be terrorism That’s the point, when the people doing it across the US in 2020 were brown (and white) it wasn’t called terrorism. Because it’s not. That said taking over the seat of government is extremely serious, even if the cast from a bad Netflix series had no idea what to do once they had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante_Lockhart Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Wouldn't surprise me if some sort of under the table deal has been done where Trump is pardoned in exchange for conceding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 19 minutes ago, Awol said: It’s not terrorism per se but political violence. Violent protesters forced their way into a Federal building to disrupt the democratic process. That’s happened many times across the US in the last 8 months or so. These clowns thought they were acting at the direction of their President and commander in chief, so if you wanted to call it terrorism (which it isn’t, according to arch anti-Trumper and ex-CIA head John Brennan) it would be state sponsored terrorism, directed by the US President, against the US. That’s Pakistan levels of messed up. Not minimizing the seriousness of what happened, it was shocking political violence but not terrorism - or even a coup attempt, see thread below They brought a literal bomb with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, Dante_Lockhart said: Wouldn't surprise me if some sort of under the table deal has been done where Trump is pardoned in exchange for conceding. Doubt it. He's thrown the only guy who can pardon him (Pence) under the bus. Normally in these situations the president pardons the VP, quits shortly before the 20th, then gets pardoned by the now new president. Pence wants to run for the office himself, if he pardons this maniac he'll lose a lot of the moderate Christian mid-west states who have voted with their noses pinched for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, Dante_Lockhart said: Wouldn't surprise me if some sort of under the table deal has been done where Trump is pardoned in exchange for conceding. Why would that be necessary? Biden is taking over one way or another and I think after yesterday support for Trump will begin to wane even in the hardcore ranks. Its easy to get caught up in something like yesterday, there’s something thrilling and exhilarating about being in a mob, s some of the idiots who interviewed stated - they thought they were the forefront of a revolution, the tip of the spear. In the cold light of day when they see and hear the news today and realise that they’re being denounced as domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and rioters a deep level of shame will wash over some of them for sure. They’ve ended up as the total opposite of what they thought they were, all thanks to their egotistical, maniacal and abhorrent leader - I only hope they turn their anger on him. Not that I’m necessarily advocating for it but I can see Trump being assassinated in the next 12 months or so by one of his own mental followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 9 minutes ago, Awol said: That’s the point, when the people doing it across the US in 2020 were brown (and white) it wasn’t called terrorism. Because it’s not. That said taking over the seat of government is extremely serious, even if the cast from a bad Netflix series had no idea what to do once they had. Please show me the news article from when the BLM protests forced their way in to the House of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 24 minutes ago, sne said: Less than an hour until King Joffrey is allowed back on Twitter. Unless they extend the ban which I guess they will. He's been given a 24 hour ban now hasn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Just now, LondonLax said: He's been given a 24 hour ban now hasn't he? I know Facebook did, thought Twitter was only 12. But they might have extended it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said: Why would that be necessary? Biden is taking over one way or another and I think after yesterday support for Trump will begin to wane even in the hardcore ranks. Its easy to get caught up in something like yesterday, there’s something thrilling and exhilarating about being in a mob, s some of the idiots who interviewed stated - they thought they were the forefront of a revolution, the tip of the spear. In the cold light of day when they see and hear the news today and realise that they’re being denounced as domestic terrorists, insurrectionists and rioters a deep level of shame will wash over some of them for sure. They’ve ended up as the total opposite of what they thought they were, all thanks to their egotistical, maniacal and abhorrent leader - I only hope they turn their anger on him. Not that I’m necessarily advocating for it but I can see Trump being assassinated in the next 12 months or so by one of his own mental followers. Shame washing over the shameless is unlikely. You also need to remember that these people will not be looking at CNN or MSNBC, they will be on Fox watching Hannity scaring the crap out of them stating that the riots will be used by the Democrats to strip away their freedom, they will be on OAN and other far right media outlets and on their own forums bigging themselves up as heroes and freedom fighters. They will see the messages from Trump saying he loves them. There is no cold light of day for those that won't open their eyes. BTW that Hannity is not rhetoric, he really said that crap. Edited January 7, 2021 by Straggler spelling and Hannity addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 17 minutes ago, sidcow said: It would 100% fit into the UK definition of terrorism: Terrorism is the use or threat of action, both in and outside of the UK, designed to influence any international government organisation or to intimidate the public. It must also be for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause. What happened yesterday without question fills all that criteria and then some. Terrorism is really performative violence, the direct victims aren’t the intended audience, as that definition says. These clowns thought they were starting a revolution. That’s not terrorism, it’s sedition. The definition of terrorism varies not only between countries but between institutions within countries. In the US for example the DoD, CIA, State Department and FBI all have different takes on what terrorism is. Terrorism scholars are no more in agreement either, despite many books (and whole careers) being dedicated to answering that question. FWIW the UK takes a very broad, ‘it’s terrorism if we say it is’ approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 Really worth a read of the thread: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sne Posted January 7, 2021 Share Posted January 7, 2021 17 hours ago, sne said: Anyone else half expecting a The Handmaids Tale style Sons of Jacob coup'd'etat staged attack tonight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale OK so it was 100% correct but surely I should get at least half a internet point for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts