History Repeats Itself... Again

[gounion]

Could you offer 2 examples. Not links I'll take your word.

Debt limit and $2 trillion covid stimulus plan, both during Trump administration.

[JoeMemphis]

It's gone way past the GOP noise machine. We have groups which are essentially armed revolutionary militias suddenly given an effective messaging tool, and a value system that considers it a violation of free speech to monitor what's going over it. You know the NSA probably gets a look at every byte, but they legally can only use it for counter-intelligence.

The cover story is that all the sedition is on the left. As bradman hints, the useful myth is that you have to watch all those lefties, even though they herd like cats, and won't even follow their own opinion leaders. Meanwhile the overthrow of the US government is plotted daily by the far right, with considerable foreign intervention around the fringes.

So tell us how this big conspiracy works. Tell us how they organize and communicate. What is the plan? How do they keep all this conspiracy shit secret. I mean you talk like the left is too disorganized but the right has it all together. Explain how it works.

Personally, I don’t think either party is all that organized. I don’t think either party has a plan. But if you are going to make the allegation at least tell us how it all works. It’s easy to make allegations of conspiracy. Supporting those allegations is something different altogether. Reminds me of Russiagate and all the “irrefutable proof” of collusion that never materialized. This sounds just like round two of that story. Pardon my skepticism.

[gounion]

So tell us how this big conspiracy works. Tell us how they organize and communicate. What is the plan? How do they keep all this conspiracy shit secret. I mean you talk like the left is too disorganized but the right has it all together. Explain how it works.

Personally, I don’t think either party is all that organized. I don’t think either party has a plan. But if you are going to make the allegation at least tell us how it all works. It’s easy to make allegations of conspiracy. Supporting those allegations is something different altogether. Reminds me of Russiagate and all the “irrefutable proof” of collusion that never materialized. This sounds just like round two of that story. Pardon my skepticism.

More false equivalency, as always. Show me the attempted insurrection by the left. Go ahead. Show me where the head of the party is threatening assassinations and imprisonment by decree.

[Glennfs]

Debt limit and $2 trillion covid stimulus plan, both during Trump administration.

Yes those are a couple of things the democratic party will always agree on.

[Glennfs]

More false equivalency, as always. Show me the attempted insurrection by the left. Go ahead. Show me where the head of the party is threatening assassinations and imprisonment by decree.

Again what insurrection.
What was the plan
What was the chain of command
Where were the weapons
Who were the commanders on the ground
How many individual groups of insurrectionists were there
Where are the individual objectives for each group
Where was the organization of a plan of action with individual groups being given individual objectives as part of an overall master plan

There was no insurrection. There was a protest that turned into a riot where some of the rioters were insurrectionist only by legal definition. Because once things started they did want to overturn the election.

[ZoWie]

You haven't read the extensive communications that were found on the net and published by the Congressional investigation. It was clear beyond reasonable doubt that a handful of opinion leaders plotted a coup by any other name.

Yes, there was a lot of inflammatory rhetoric which stirred up the usual people who respond to such things, but still under it all there was a meeting of the minds that the electoral process had to be stopped, in violation of federal law. It is established legal precedent that meeting of the minds is sufficient grounds for a conspiracy charge. You can't support that when it's the left opposing the latest presidential war, and then turn around and say it's not a conspiracy when Republican rabble rousers do it.

[gounion]

Again what insurrection.
What was the plan
What was the chain of command
Where were the weapons
Who were the commanders on the ground
How many individual groups of insurrectionists were there
Where are the individual objectives for each group
Where was the organization of a plan of action with individual groups being given individual objectives as part of an overall master plan

There was no insurrection. There was a protest that turned into a riot where some of the rioters were insurrectionist only by legal definition. Because once things started they did want to overturn the election.

Whatever Trump tells you to say. So let's be clear: You think Trump is innocent, that he did nothing wrong, that the whole Jack Smith investigation is a Biden-led witch hunt just to keep Dear Leader from regaining the presidency.

[ZoWie]

> What was the plan

A series of meetings by dark web or in person, well documented by the committee reports with hundreds of pages of transcriptions.

> What was the chain of command

Depended on the organization involved. There were indeed paramilitary leaders who issued marching orders, but compared to a real military it was pretty small stuff.

> Where were the weapons

Everywhere, since they are not only legal but encouraged in the relevant culture.

> Who were the commanders on the ground

They existed, but in the chaos it turned into more of a mob. There were a couple of well targeted operations against a couple of elected members of Congress. There were well made maps, thanks to some tours given to conspirators (unwittingly no doubt) by other members of Congress in the days before the insurrection.

> How many individual groups of insurrectionists were there

A number greater than four and less than ten. Not known for sure, since these are covert groups.

> Where are the individual objectives for each group

Spelled out in plans made before the uprising that are documented in the voluminous investigative reports. They did have a military style operation, with well planned objectives, but in the heat of battle it broke down somewhat.

> There was no insurrection

Legally, there was. It wasn't much of an insurrection as these go, but it's still considered an un-American thing to be doing here.

[gounion]

Roger Stone and Glenn's hero Rudy were two of the Trump people that were tied in with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups.

But then, obviously Glenn's never read the Jack Smith indictment. He only knows what Facebook has told him about it. Glenn proudly says he's never read any court filings or decisions at all. Too many words for him.

[JoeMemphis]

> What was the plan

A series of meetings by dark web or in person, well documented by the committee reports with hundreds of pages of transcriptions.

> What was the chain of command

Depended on the organization involved. There were indeed paramilitary leaders who issued marching orders, but compared to a real military it was pretty small stuff.

> Where were the weapons

Everywhere, since they are not only legal but encouraged in the relevant culture.

> Who were the commanders on the ground

They existed, but in the chaos it turned into more of a mob. There were a couple of well targeted operations against a couple of elected members of Congress. There were well made maps, thanks to some tours given to conspirators (unwittingly no doubt) by other members of Congress in the days before the insurrection.

> How many individual groups of insurrectionists were there

A number greater than four and less than ten. Not known for sure, since these are covert groups.

> Where are the individual objectives for each group

Spelled out in plans made before the uprising that are documented in the voluminous investigative reports. They did have a military style operation, with well planned objectives, but in the heat of battle it broke down somewhat.

> There was no insurrection

Legally, there was. It wasn't much of an insurrection as these go, but it's still considered an un-American thing to be doing here.

There may very well have been some folks with the fantasy of overthrowing the US government. But I think the point is that this government isn’t that easy to topple. As you said “pretty small stuff”. So punish those idiots who attempted to overthrow the government. Punish the people who rioted. Punish the folks thought they were going to a protest and who got caught up in all of this but show a little mercy.

Maybe someday we can move on. We have other problems that we need to face as a nation. We cannot do that if we are warring amongst ourselves.

[ZoWie]

I'm willing to move on from 1/6. The ringleaders are mostly doing time, and with justice done I don't see a point to going after too many other people who were there. There's one major exception, and we all know who that person is, but we legally can't seem to get his conspiring ass.

[gounion]

There may very well have been some folks with the fantasy of overthrowing the US government. But I think the point is that this government isn’t that easy to topple. As you said “pretty small stuff”. So punish those idiots who attempted to overthrow the government. Punish the people who rioted. Punish the folks thought they were going to a protest and who got caught up in all of this but show a little mercy.

Maybe someday we can move on. We have other problems that we need to face as a nation. We cannot do that if we are warring amongst ourselves.

So pretend that's not what Trump and his minions were trying to do. Not surprised at all.

[JoeMemphis]

I'm willing to move on from 1/6. The ringleaders are mostly doing time, and with justice done I don't see a point to going after too many other people who were there. There's one major exception, and we all know who that person is, but we legally can't seem to get his conspiring ass.

I think he certainly incited a riot. Whether that was his intention and whether that can be proved is a different matter. As I said earlier, I don’t think a serious person believes they can overthrow the US government that easily for all the reasons Glenn listed. At any rate I haven’t seen proof that such a wide ranging and comprehensive strategy existed or that it had a prayer of succeeding. Does anyone think the various states would have gone along with this? And without their consent, one would need the active cooperation of the military. Not to mention, the legislature would not have gone along. Dreaming of revolution and pulling it off are two very different things.

[gounion]

I think he certainly incited a riot. Whether that was his intention and whether that can be proved is a different matter. As I said earlier, I don’t think a serious person believes they can overthrow the US government that easily for all the reasons Glenn listed. At any rate I haven’t seen proof that such a wide ranging and comprehensive strategy existed or that it had a prayer of succeeding. Does anyone think the various states would have gone along with this? And without their consent, one would need the active cooperation of the military. Not to mention, the legislature would not have gone along. Dreaming of revolution and pulling it off are two very different things.

So it’s only a thing when it succeeds? No big deal that they beat cops, no big deal that they spread shit all over the walls.

But HEY what the protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were the REAL problem, right?

[JoeMemphis]

So it’s only a thing when it succeeds? No big deal that they beat cops, no big deal that they spread shit all over the walls.

But HEY what the protesters at Black Lives Matter protests were the REAL problem, right?

I would punish those people who behaved violently or destroyed property regardless of whether they were at Jan 6 or at the BLM riots. I said as much numerous times.

[gounion]

I would punish those people who behaved violently or destroyed property regardless of whether they were at Jan 6 or at the BLM riots. I said as much numerous times.

No, you downplay the insurrection. No big deal to you. Pretend it’s no big deal. The REAL issue is Hunter Biden, after all, right?

[JoeMemphis]

No, you downplay the insurrection. No big deal to you. Pretend it’s no big deal. The REAL issue is Hunter Biden, after all, right?

I stand by my post. Do you have a problem treating violent activity the same without fear or favor? If so then we agree. Justice and the administration of Justice should be blind. So yeah, it’s an easy question to answer. Treat them all the same. Violent protest is never okay.

[gounion]

I stand by my post. Do you have a problem treating violent activity the same without fear or favor? If so then we agree. Justice and the administration of Justice should be blind. So yeah, it’s an easy question to answer. Treat them all the same. Violent protest is never okay.

Bullshit. You try to downplay the violence on your side. Both you and Glenn characterize Jan 6th as just a protest gone bad.

Which is complete bullshit. It was an attempt by a man who lost an election to overthrow the government, and the conspiracy of many to do just that.

[JoeMemphis]

Bullshit. You try to downplay the violence on your side. Both you and Glenn characterize Jan 6th as just a protest gone bad.

Which is complete bullshit. It was an attempt by a man who lost an election to overthrow the government, and the conspiracy of many to do just that.

That has nothing to do with the legal treatment of violent protestors and rioters who attack people and destroy property. I wouldn’t treat them any differently depending on the where and what they are protesting. That kind of behavior is not justified or excusable. Hold them all to account.

You are certainly free to disagree. If you disagree maybe you can explain what and when violent protest and property damage is okay in your view.

[gounion]

That has nothing to do with the legal treatment of violent protestors and rioters who attack people and destroy property. I wouldn’t treat them any differently depending on the where and what they are protesting. That kind of behavior is not justified or excusable. Hold them all to account.

You are certainly free to disagree. If you disagree maybe you can explain what and when violent protest and property damage is okay in your view.

One “protest” was an attempt to overthrow a government. Pretending it’s the same as people reacting with outrage to police murder is quite different - especially when there was more police violence toward BLM protesters. The vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful.

But you’re the king of the false equivalency. You’re even happy to vote for Republicans that were part of the January 6th conspiracy.

[JoeMemphis]

One “protest” was an attempt to overthrow a government. Pretending it’s the same as people reacting with outrage to police murder is quite different - especially when there was more police violence toward BLM protesters. The vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful.

But you’re the king of the false equivalency. You’re even happy to vote for Republicans that were part of the January 6th conspiracy.

Under the law one act of violent protest is the same as the other. So it is in fact equivalent. Unless you want to claim that getting beaten or attacked by one protester on Jan 6 is different from getting beaten by a protester at a BLM rally. Or would you like to argue that destroying property, burning and looting at one event is somehow more acceptable than at the other.

Care to explain?

[gounion]

Under the law one act of violent protest is the same as the other. So it is in fact equivalent. Unless you want to claim that getting beaten or attacked by one protester on Jan 6 is different from getting beaten by a protester at a BLM rally. Or would you like to argue that destroying property, burning and looting at one event is somehow more acceptable than at the other.

Care to explain?

No, it’s not. Attacking the seat of American government and flat-out attacking police with tasers and bear spray at the orders of the President is far different than peaceful protesters fighting back against cops that attacked them. Look at the police attacking this 76-year-old peaceful protester.

https://youtu.be/n4f4dXXbfEg?si=Hf-k81r9XZ5yd79p

But hey, anything to defend Dear Leader, right?

[ZoWie]

This issue comes up again and again. Common sense is very helpful here. In real civil disobedience, offenders have practiced going limp, so if the police use the usual violence to subdue them, it gets ruled excessive force in court. This extends to staying limp when under arrest, making the cops drag them away, which often gets added to the charges as resisting.

Obviously it takes a pretty strong commitment and a lot of guts to do this.

A line gets crossed when protesters throw fireworks, rocks, and bottles at cops, or when cops treat people who aren't doing this as potential violent offenders.

Generally, people going to a protest have not armed themselves with various types of deadly weapons, or previously organized themselves into paramilitary units with standing orders. In some cities you can't even use sticks to carry signs.

[JoeMemphis]

No, it’s not. Attacking the seat of American government and flat-out attacking police with tasers and bear spray at the orders of the President is far different than peaceful protesters fighting back against cops that attacked them. Look at the police attacking this 76-year-old peaceful protester.

https://youtu.be/n4f4dXXbfEg?si=Hf-k81r9XZ5yd79p

But hey, anything to defend Dear Leader, right?

No not really. Assaulting law enforcement is assaulting law enforcement. There may be different penalties and different courts, but violent physical assault is violent physical assault. Neither one is permissible under the law. And make no mistake, the violence at BLM rallies was more than what you describe. Further nothing excuses the violence and looting. It’s all illegal. So stop making excuses.

[gounion]

No not really. Assaulting law enforcement is assaulting law enforcement. There may be different penalties and different courts, but violent physical assault is violent physical assault. Neither one is permissible under the law. And make no mistake, the violence at BLM rallies was more than what you describe. Further nothing excuses the violence and looting. It’s all illegal. So stop making excuses.

No, it wasn’t, Joe. You’re just believing the right-wing noise machine - they believe all blacks are violent and deserve what they get.

Was the 75-year-old man in the video assaulting police?

Is defending yourself against police violence acceptable to you? And there was NO BLM protest equivalent to what happened on January 6th. Those people did what they did at the behest of Donald Trump, through his henchmen Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani.

You’d think a patriotic American would be sickened by people spreading shit along the walls of our nation’s capitol. But I guess you support what they did.