U.S. Politics

[Seat68]

3 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I wonder how many of them are like doing cold turkey now not being able to log on to Trumps twitter, and onto Parler and spend their day digesting and repeating all the tripe. 

I don't do any social media but when a thread I have been interested in on VT goes quiet I feel a tinsy tiny bit deflated.  I would imagine that when something that has been utterly consuming you suddenly disappears it comes as one hell of a shock. 

Hopefully for some of them it suddenly dawns on them that it's not been healthy and they can take a step back, like you hear some people saying when they've been on a phone detox for a while. 

@limpid dropped this knowledge on me a while back. You do social media, VT is social media. I was going to call bollocks, looked at the definition and he was right. 

[KenjiOgiwara]

1 minute ago, Seat68 said:

@limpid dropped this knowledge on me a while back. You do social media, VT is social media. I was going to call bollocks, looked at the definition and he was right. 

He is annoyingly often right about random stuff.

[sidcow]

13 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

@limpid dropped this knowledge on me a while back. You do social media, VT is social media. I was going to call bollocks, looked at the definition and he was right. 

Oh no, I had better resign my VT password and log on.  Shame.

[StefanAVFC]

42 minutes ago, sidcow said:

There are a great many people who have sunk so deep into their social media driven fantasy world it does seem like a kind of mass brainwashing has occurred. 

I do think they need to launch some kind of help for these people. 

The same people hate ISIS.

They are the same, just a different colour. Y'all Qaeda.

[magnkarl]

 

To anyone saying that this isn't terrorism - discussing how you will kill the VP of America, armed with guns, pipebombs, zip ties and rope. What is?

To call them animals would be an insult to animals. 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Well, at least she's very sorry about the whole thing:

 

She seems sensible.

I have followed her quite closely. She defeated a 'normal' Republican in her primary race (he was very conservative, but a suit-and-tie, Chamber-of-Commerce type). She runs a bar or some other type of establishment where she encourages patrons to carry firearms and which the Health Department in Colorado were constantly trying to shut because she insisted nobody wore masks. She's also a Q-Anon believer. A complete idiot, in other words.

That said, @blandy is right, the idea that she was 'revealing the location of the speaker' by tweeting 'the speaker has left the chamber' is self-evidently absurd. I think it's a fairer cop to say she helped incite the riot by tweeting 'this is 1776' though.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I think it's a fairer cop to say she helped incite the riot by tweeting 'this is 1776' though.

It's more of a lamentable thing to do, and she's clearly an absolute tool. But in terms of people saying incitement and she should go to prison for life (or at all) - no, that's not how the law works and these infants squealing about it are just as daft as she is.

Judge: What is the prosecution"s evidence of the alleged incitement?

Lawyer: The accused wrote a tweet comparing events to events 250 years ago.

Judge: Acquitted! Release the prisoner.

-----------

I mean it's just childishly pathetic. Yes, the tweet will be perceived as possible incitement by some, and may even have been intended to incite, but it may have been intended to convey solidarity with a peaceful rally, or to convey approval of the (wrong) view that the election was stolen, or... - there's no way of proving or knowing intent, and there's no way of priving or knowing whether the tweet had any impact or effect.

[It's Your Round]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

@limpid dropped this knowledge on me a while back. You do social media, VT is social media. I was going to call bollocks, looked at the definition and he was right. 

He is right, this is social media, but I like to think of it as the thinking man’s social media  it’s a more refined and pleasant place to be than any other. 

[magnkarl]

Quisling (/ˈkwɪzlɪŋ/; Norwegian pronunciation: [ˈkvɪ̂slɪŋ]) is a term originating in Norway, which is used in Scandinavian languages and in English for a person who collaborates with an enemy occupying force – or more generally as a synonym for traitor..

I wonder if Trump will get his own word. The media are using the word "Trumpster" a lot. 

I'll have a gander;

Trump is a term originating in the US, which is used in all common languages to describe a person who does not respect the constitution in the country he or she is elected leader of. More generally a bout of trumpism will see you turn orange, get smaller hands and have a massive inferiority complex.

In use: 

Dang nabbit Derneese, my cow's got a bout of trumpism again. Bring over the semi-automatic so I can put er' down!

Boris quite clearly was a Trump today because he doesn't even understand basic laws.

Edited January 11, 2021 by magnkarl

[HanoiVillan]

51 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's more of a lamentable thing to do, and she's clearly an absolute tool. But in terms of people saying incitement and she should go to prison for life (or at all) - no, that's not how the law works and these infants squealing about it are just as daft as she is.

Judge: What is the prosecution"s evidence of the alleged incitement?

Lawyer: The accused wrote a tweet comparing events to events 250 years ago.

Judge: Acquitted! Release the prisoner.

-----------

I mean it's just childishly pathetic. Yes, the tweet will be perceived as possible incitement by some, and may even have been intended to incite, but it may have been intended to convey solidarity with a peaceful rally, or to convey approval of the (wrong) view that the election was stolen, or... - there's no way of proving or knowing intent, and there's no way of priving or knowing whether the tweet had any impact or effect.

I think it's more than 'childish' to be honest. I agree with you that it obviously isn't going to cause any legal problems, but something can be morally damning without being illegal.

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

It's more of a lamentable thing to do, and she's clearly an absolute tool. But in terms of people saying incitement and she should go to prison for life (or at all) - no, that's not how the law works and these infants squealing about it are just as daft as she is.

Judge: What is the prosecution"s evidence of the alleged incitement?

Lawyer: The accused wrote a tweet comparing events to events 250 years ago.

Judge: Acquitted! Release the prisoner.

-----------

I mean it's just childishly pathetic. Yes, the tweet will be perceived as possible incitement by some, and may even have been intended to incite, but it may have been intended to convey solidarity with a peaceful rally, or to convey approval of the (wrong) view that the election was stolen, or... - there's no way of proving or knowing intent, and there's no way of priving or knowing whether the tweet had any impact or effect.

Poor form to dismiss that as "childish" in my eyes.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

 

To anyone saying that this isn't terrorism - discussing how you will kill the VP of America, armed with guns, pipebombs, zip ties and rope. What is?

To call them animals would be an insult to animals. 

This was a riot cum insurrection, not terrorism or an attempted coup.  Not all political violence is terrorism. 

I agree they are animals, though.

[sidcow]

The. Business restrictions are increasing now. A lot of sponsors are now refusing to support those senators who tried to back the attempt to stop the vote being approved. 

Also the company who processes payments to Trumps stop the steal campaign has pulled out so we needs to find a new company to process his payments. 

When you think about how precious most companies are about their ethics and corporate image it's actually surprising how many have stood with him till now, but he's clearly taken it too far with the storming of Capitol for them. He's going to lose a lot of big corporate money. 

[sidcow]

41 minutes ago, Awol said:

This was a riot cum insurrection, not terrorism or an attempted coup.  Not all political violence is terrorism. 

I agree they are animals, though.

They had hand ties to kidnap people. 

I am 100% certain that if they had got hold of a Dem senator or Pence things would have been a lot darker. 

Just because they didn't succeed in their intentions doesn't change what it was.

They intended to instill fear and use force to influence the Government to suit their purposes. There were bombs planted, there were people with guns and petrol bombs. 

If that's not terrorism there ain't no such thing. 

Edited January 11, 2021 by sidcow

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

That said, @blandy is right, the idea that she was 'revealing the location of the speaker' by tweeting 'the speaker has left the chamber' is self-evidently absurd. I think it's a fairer cop to say she helped incite the riot by tweeting 'this is 1776' though.

Maybe not actually revealing her whereabouts, but ask yourself why whe is even mentioning it full stop?

Put yourself in her shoes.  What would be going through your mind if there was a baying mob at the door? What would you think about tweeting about? 

It just seems like a very odd thing to tweet.  What it does say is "if you want her, stop wasting time trying to get in here and start searching elsewhere. 

There is definitely some kind of motive or why the hell would you mention it? I can think of no logical reason for it. 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

They had hand ties to kidnap people. 

I am 100% certain that if they had got hold of a Dem senator or Pence things would have been a lot darker. 

Just because they didn't succeed in their intentions doesn't change what it was.

They intended to instill fear and use force influence the Government to suit their purposes. There were bombs planted, there were people with guns and petrol bombs. 

If that's not terrorism there ain't no such thing. 

 

It wasn't terrorism.

Terrorism targets civilians, random people, not specific named individuals.  That's either attempted assassination or kidnap. 

The victims of terrorism are extras in a performance being put on by terrorists to influence a wider audience. This was a motely collection of idiots, whipped up by Trump, some intent on and prepared for violence, let into the Capitol building by police (presumably sympathisers of some form).

The majority looked for souvenirs and took selfies, a few were nasty, vicious, had murderous intent and thought it was the revolution 2.0.  

Revolution isn't terrorism, either. 

 

[sidcow]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

 

Terrorism targets civilians, random people, not specific named individuals.  That's either attempted assassination or kidnap. 

Well that's just not true full stop, but if it was who was going to be specifically targeted by the pipe bombs? 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Maybe not actually revealing her whereabouts, but ask yourself why whe is even mentioning it full stop?

Put yourself in her shoes.  What would be going through your mind if there was a baying mob at the door? What would you think about tweeting about? 

It just seems like a very odd thing to tweet.  What it does say is "if you want her, stop wasting time trying to get in here and start searching elsewhere. 

There is definitely some kind of motive or why the hell would you mention it? I can think of no logical reason for it. 

Yes, I agree with you here. At the very least it's a weird thing to tweet, and it's definitely not what I would be tweeting. Your interpretation is plausible, but I suppose there's an alternative possible explanation that she was just tweeting what she was seeing as it happened, as it seems like she was in a state of high excitement herself.

What I would say, and I think is key, is that the question of whether we can prove her intent beyond reasonable doubt is of interest only to prosecutors. We normal people can look at her past political history, her tweets on the day taken as a whole, her vote to refuse to certify the election results, and her highly provocative online presence, and can decide for ourselves that she was at least helping provoke the riot, and possibly happy it happened. No, we can't prove that beyond reasonable doubt, but in real life we don't have to have that level of evidence to make moral decisions about someone's worth.

22 minutes ago, sidcow said:

They had hand ties to kidnap people. 

I am 100% certain that if they had got hold of a Dem senator or Pence things would have been a lot darker. 

Just because they didn't succeed in their intentions doesn't change what it was.

They intended to instill fear and use force influence the Government to suit their purposes. There were bombs planted, there were people with guns and petrol bombs. 

If that's not terrorism there ain't no such thing. 

 

There are two schools of thought about this. One is that there were two types of people there, firstly the moronic daytrippers who got swept up in the drama of it all and just wanted to go in, break a few things, shout a few obscenities, and just generally own the libs, and secondly hardened types who were there with a more serious and violent purpose in mind, as evidenced by the guns and zipties as you mention.

The second school of thought is that the second group are just basically the same as the first group, but cos-playing as citizen soldiers or right-wing guerillas or whatever. That if they had found a Democrat politician they wouldn't have known what to do with them, just as they didn't know what to do, tactically, after having taken over the seat of government.

I honestly don't know which of these theories is right. I can see good arguments for both sides. But what I think is that there are real benefits to *acting* as if the first theory is correct. People who choose to invade buildings dressed in military gear, carrying weapons and ties, are not something we want to encourage. There is no wider benefit to society from allowing these people to benefit from ambiguity about whether they are cosplaying or whether they are Jihadi Johns. Therefore, best to act as if they came in with murderous intent, whether they did or didn't. (Again, as above, this is how I think *the general public* should see these people - *prosecutors* need to go with what they can prove beyond reasonable doubt).

[bickster]

25 minutes ago, Awol said:

Terrorism targets civilians, random people, not specific named individuals. 

Airey Neave says Hi (first one that popped into my head, plenty more besides, as I'm sure you're well aware)

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

something can be morally damning without being illegal.

That's exactly right, and exactly how I see it.

The infants see something morally damning and demand prison and demand lynching and demand....it's all just childish. My preferred treatment of such idiots is mockery, not calls for them to be locked up.