# Invasion of US Capitol building



## El Barto

Absolutely insane scenes.


----------



## billw

Stayed up until about 3am watching it. Unbelievable scenes. Glad to see Biden's finally been confirmed, but you have to wonder what insanity Trump will undertake in the next two weeks, he's clearly mentally unstable.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I think you may be missing the point of all this: it doesn't matter who wins, who is inaugurated, which half of the duopoly gets to be "boss" for a few years - half of the electorate will refuse to acknowledge the government as legitimate. This would appear to have been done on purpose.

It is certainly ironic to see Color Revolution techniques being used on the good ol' US of A.


----------



## Spectric

Whos taking bets on the probability that Biden will become the next assassinated US president. Many will not believe that the election was fair as so much doubt has been cast, and the country is a tinderbox waiting for ignition.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> I think you may be missing the point of all this: it doesn't matter who wins, who is inaugurated, which half of the duopoly gets to be "boss" for a few years - half of the electorate will refuse to acknowledge the government as legitimate. This would appear to have been done on purpose.
> 
> It is certainly ironic to see Color Revolution techniques being used on the good ol' US of A.


The irony is that if that if this had been a mere civil rights BLM op it would have been forcibly put down and anybody carrying arms would almost certainly have been shot.


----------



## Sandyn

It was absolutely crazy scenes, but what amazed me is that they seemed to be totally unprepared (perhaps deliberately) to defend congress. I think Biden is taking the right course by just letting the legal process take it's course and not play into the hands of Trump. I think everything will settle down after transition.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> The irony is that if that if this had been a BLM op it would have been forcibly put down and anybody carrying arms would almost certainly been shot.


Are you sure? The BLM chaos in Portland seemed to manage quite well without any police at all. No fascist jackbooted police beating innocent grannies and young children. Not for months.

I would suggest that this is just yet more politically slanted disinformation to appeal to the relevant side.

And btw, there weren't 14,000 arrests at a George Floyd demonstration. The quote from wikipedia is somewhat more nuanced:


> By the end of June, at least 14,000 people had been arrested.[3][31][32] It was later estimated that between May 26 and August 22, 93% of individual protests were "peaceful and nondestructive"[33] and _The Washington Post_ estimated that by the end of June, 96.3% of 7,305 demonstrations involved no injuries and no property damage.[34] Nevertheless, arson, vandalism, and looting between May 26 and June 8 were tabulated to have caused $1–2 billion in insured damages nationally—the highest recorded damage from civil disorder in U.S. history, "eclipsing the record set in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King."[5][35]



Notice the emphasis on "mostly peaceful", because only a tiny minority actually do any rioting. Exactly the same thing when it is a right wing riot, but the good old internet is spreading its disinformation as fast as it can.


----------



## thetyreman

the trump supporters were encouraged by him to damage the building, he set this up in my opinion on purpose as a last 'tantrum' because he's knows deep down he lost and because he's on the narcissistic spectrum he'll never admit it, for me it's just further proof of his absolute insanity and it puts the USA in a very negative light, he's an embarrassment and I can't wait to see him go.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> Are you sure? The BLM chaos in Portland seemed to manage quite well without any police at all. No fascist jackbooted police beating innocent grannies and young children. Not for months.
> 
> I would suggest that this is just yet more politically slanted disinformation to appeal to the relevant side.
> 
> And btw, there weren't 14,000 arrests at a George Floyd demonstration. The quote from wikipedia is somewhat more nuanced:
> 
> Notice the emphasis on "mostly peaceful", because only a tiny minority actually do any rioting. Exactly the same thing when it is a right wing riot, but the good old internet is spreading its disinformation as fast as it can.











Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures


Wednesday saw a thin deployment of officers as rioters stormed the Capitol. In June, a very different scene unfolded in the same city




www.theguardian.com


----------



## El Barto

The fact is that police behaved very differently towards an angry and as far as I can tell not particularly peaceful(?) crowd of white protestors than it did to an angry but mostly peaceful crowd of black protestors.


----------



## El Barto

Trainee neophyte said:


> Are you sure? The BLM chaos in Portland seemed to manage quite well without any police at all. No fascist jackbooted police beating innocent grannies and young children. Not for months.
> 
> I would suggest that this is just yet more politically slanted disinformation to appeal to the relevant side.
> 
> And btw, there weren't 14,000 arrests at a George Floyd demonstration. The quote from wikipedia is somewhat more nuanced:
> 
> Notice the emphasis on "mostly peaceful", because only a tiny minority actually do any rioting. Exactly the same thing when it is a right wing riot, but the good old internet is spreading its disinformation as fast as it can.



LOL so you're likening yesterday's scenes to the Black Lives Matter protests? "Exactly the same thing when it is a right wing riot". No, forcefully gaining entry to a government building in order to change the results of a legitimate election is not the same thing as rioting. Good try though!


----------



## El Barto

ANYWHO, the point of this thread was to shed light on the _objective_ disparity of police treatment between white protestors and black protestors in America. If you don't agree then you're wrong, soz.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures
> 
> 
> Wednesday saw a thin deployment of officers as rioters stormed the Capitol. In June, a very different scene unfolded in the same city
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


Balanced journalism from the guardian? Exactly what I was talking about: a tiny minority (4%ish?) of protesters are rioting, but completely biased journalists will claim "their" rioters are "mostly peaceful", whereas the other side's rioters are violent terrorists. This same message will come from both left _and_ right. You won't get any partisanship from me - I have no dog in this fight, and think that they are all barking. Both sides. However, it's interesting to hear the left bleating for a change, rather than desparately trying trying to normalise violent behaviour, as they have done over the last year. Rather refreshing.

I am of the opinion that all this tension has been set up to try and engender a Color Revolution, or just some good old chaos and confusion. Never let a crisis go to waste.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

El Barto said:


> ANYWHO, the point of this thread was to shed light on the _objective_ disparity of police treatment between white protestors and black protestors in America. If you don't agree then you're wrong, soz.


The only difference as I see it is that the left set fire to their own neighbourhoods, whereas the right have set fire to the government buildings. 

I take it that the inferred position is that Trump tried to get his "armed thugs" to take control of the Capitol Building, and therefore stage armed coup, bring down the government etc, so on and so forth?

How does that differ from BLM taking over the seat of government in Portland? They were black, therefore peaceful? They were justified in their complaint, so they could have full autonomy for weeks (or was it months)?

My position is that there just isn't any _objective_ disparity between any of it. Fully weaponised propaganda by the social media companies means nothing that happens is _objective_. Two groups of delusional people, living two distinct versions of reality. It can't possibly end well.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> Balanced journalism from the guardian? Exactly what I was talking about: a tiny minority (4%ish?) of protesters are rioting, but completely biased journalists will claim "their" rioters are "mostly peaceful", whereas the other side's rioters are violent terrorists. This same message will come from both left _and_ right. You won't get any partisanship from me - I have no dog in this fight, and think that they are all barking. Both sides. However, it's interesting to hear the left bleating for a change, rather than desparately trying trying to normalise violent behaviour, as they have done over the last year. Rather refreshing.
> 
> I am of the opinion that all this tension has been set up to try and engender a Color Revolution, or just some good old chaos and confusion. Never let a crisis go to waste.


The loudest "bleating" seems to be coming from Trump and his supporters.
"Color" revolution - I presume you mean red versus blue, in which case yes that seems to be exactly what Trump is hoping for.
The difference between BLM movements and the Trump faction is that the former are fighting _for_ civil rights and democracy but the latter against. They are not equivalent and opposite.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

thetyreman said:


> .... he's an embarrassment and I can't wait to see him go.



Never, in living memory, has the thud of the closure of the lid of the dustbin of history been so eagerly anticipated...


----------



## selectortone

If Trump had not made that rabble-rousing speech those four dead people would be alive this morning.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Color" revolution - I presume you mean red versus blue, in which case yes that seems to be exactly what Trump is hoping for.











Color Revolutions Explained | Finding Purpose


Color Revolution and State Capture 16 September 2020 see all Color Revolution posts [12 November 2020 update on Color Revolution and Fifth-generation Warfare (5GW)] [31 July 2021 update Consolidation Phase of Our Color Revolution] Color revolutions are much more than a catchy title applied to...




barryclark.info


----------



## D_W

Spectric said:


> Whos taking bets on the probability that Biden will become the next assassinated US president. Many will not believe that the election was fair as so much doubt has been cast, and the country is a tinderbox waiting for ignition.



It won't happen - you're not going to see another assassinated president. There's a fair chance at his age that he may not persist through his first term due to natural causes. 

I'm not a huge fan of the protests in the capitol, but did read on another forum from someone who was there (he's a gun manufacturer, so I guess he likes these sort of things). In his words, the protest group headed to the front of the building and said "we're going in there and nobody is stopping us". In his part of the mob, at least, they were only yelling, but he'd heard that windows, etc, were broken on the other side of the building and suggested that some of the counterprotesters were stealthily dressed as MAGAs. His glom was unarmed, and the police suggested that those who remained in their group would be, too (that turned out not to be true). He also said several in his group (which was involved with nothing other than yelling back and forth) had their live streams cut off by video and streaming platforms and bits already recorded were deleted from the platform. I thought that was a bit odd here in the US. If they're showing a crime and glorifying it, that's understandable. To remove all is a bit chinesey). 

In a group this big, lack of uniformity makes one man's account potentially accurate only for his segment, though. 

You wouldn't catch me in any of that stuff - if you think an election was falsified, win it in court. 

I'm not into politics at all, so I can't get excited by any of it - it'll blow over, and I'll be happy to stay away from any of it on any side.


----------



## D_W

(you'll also note that despite all of the fancy protests and colorful news stories, congress got back to business and already confirmed the election results. If I were one of the police, I probably would've stepped aside also - people have to eat and drink at some point - no need to make martyrs out of any of htem).


----------



## El Barto

D_W said:


> (you'll also note that despite all of the fancy protests and colorful news stories, congress got back to business and already confirmed the election results. If I were one of the police, I probably would've stepped aside also - people have to eat and drink at some point - no need to make martyrs out of any of htem).



But as an American aren't you alarmed at all?


----------



## lurker

Well it's another country ,so for most of us it's none of our business to comment one way or the other.
Our Home Secretary poked her oar in today
We have enough problems of our own, she wants to get slavery stamped out in the uk. That is a damn disgrace and entirely within her remit.


----------



## billw

Spectric said:


> Whos taking bets on the probability that Biden will become the next assassinated US president. Many will not believe that the election was fair as so much doubt has been cast, and the country is a tinderbox waiting for ignition.



It wouldn't surprise me.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> In his part of the mob, at least, they were only yelling, but he'd heard that windows, etc, were broken on the other side of the building and suggested that some of the counterprotesters were stealthily dressed as MAGAs.



I saw a lot of conservative commentators saying exactly the same this morning. I'm not going to write it off as impossible but..... come on. Liberals have just seen them win the presidency, take control of the senate, and hold control of the house. They have a clean sweep to enact whatever they want for two years with only a conservative Supreme Court to "fight back". Why would left wing agitators do anything like this?

I unapologetically hold zero sympathy nor values with the US right wing, I think they're mostly abhorrent individuals trying to live in the 1950s, so I admit I have an absolute bias. But if you're asking me to believe that it's left wing sabotage versus right wing emboldened activists then I'm going to need a lot of convincing.

Still waiting for that mountain of evidence of fraud btw. Two months down the line, we're still told "it's coming". Sure.....like Christ.


----------



## D_W

Trainee neophyte said:


> But as an American aren't you alarmed at all?
> 
> Also, why did a moderator edit one of my posts to remove the part where I said a moderator had edited my post?



Personally? No - A group protested. A woman who was unarmed got shot over it and it sounds like some other people got shot. I heard an account of the woman being at the front of a group who was pushing from behind, but who knows if that's inaccurate. I also heard (due to forum posts elsewhere) that she was unarmed and not doing anything in particular herself worthy of being shot. I guess someone had a nervous trigger finger. 

This is a real danger when you get in a group and there are police. But, it's protest. It'll blow over. 

We don't go for perfect safety and "we should all have the same opinion"ism in the US. There's a cohort who does, who thinks consensus development is important. In my view, if there is protest, Biden is elected (that's already happened) and it blows over, that's part of democracy.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I saw a lot of conservative commentators saying exactly the same this morning. I'm not going to write it off as impossible but..... come on. Liberals have just seen them win the presidency, take control of the senate, and hold control of the house. They have a clean sweep to enact whatever they want for two years with only a conservative Supreme Court to "fight back". Why would left wing agitators do anything like this?
> 
> I unapologetically hold zero sympathy nor values with the US right wing, I think they're mostly abhorrent individuals trying to live in the 1950s, so I admit I have an absolute bias. But if you're asking me to believe that it's left wing sabotage versus right wing emboldened activists then I'm going to need a lot of convincing.
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence of fraud btw. Two months down the line, we're still told "it's coming". Sure.....like Christ.



You're looking at this the wrong way assuming some large part of the democratic party is involved in sending counterprotestors. That's not a realistic look at it - dressing like someone else to make them look bad is the territory of unsponsored fringe groups like antifa. What you're creating is an unlikely argument to conclude that something else more likely isn't true. 

I'd also guess that what mainstream conservatives are like in the US is shown around the world like fat shows show fat people or rednecks. It's entertainment value. I used to be conservative. I'm not political (the fact that I slid out instead of sliding toward the democratic party is very deliberate). The sensationalism to paint one side or the other as an extreme is in poor taste to me. I think the average conservative in the US is more likely to be a small business owner or employee who never creates any trouble, nor sponsors or endorses it. That doesn't make for a good news story. 

If there was 100k protesters in the capitol and there are 125MM adult conservatives, it's not a large slice. News right down the middle doesn't sell well, and it stirs the pot - I'd be in favor of more honest news, less catering to the extremes on the ends and less pot stirring, but we have motivated people on the end points and coverage that is motivated to make money off of them and skew reality.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> We don't go for perfect safety and "we should all have the same opinion"ism in the US. There's a cohort who does, who thinks consensus development is important. In my view, if there is protest, Biden is elected (that's already happened) and it blows over, that's part of democracy.



Maybe you can answer one of my burning questions for America. Trump has said that liberals "want everyone to think like them" as if it's some assault on people's freedom of speech.

Yet what I see from Trump supporters is that they want an America that's populated by white Christians. If you're not "one of them" (ie think like them) then you're not American.

Liberal positions say "accept everyone as an individual". That's not telling you what to think, it's telling you to be a kind, nonjudgmental person. The right wing says hate gays, blacks, transgender, immigrants, Mexicans...whatever. Just write a huge list of people to hate.

SO my question - which Americans are right? In the most individualist society on earth, do the "accept individuals" win, or do the "you must be like us before you can be an individual" win?


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> territory of unsponsored fringe groups like antifa.



Antifa means "anti-fascist". If you disagree with this view (they're not a group) then that says to me that you agree with fascism.

This isn't rocket science. Last night I saw a republican tweet "antifa scum" as if being against fascism makes you a bad person.

You're saying that being anti-fascist is FRINGE?

God. Bless. America.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence of fraud btw. Two months down the line, we're still told "it's coming". Sure.....like Christ.



The real sentiment here is that there are instances of fraud (I'm sure there are in every election) and that trump lost the election on his own account). If you can get a minority of the population to make a big stink and believe widespread unproven claims, then that's one thing, but I don't come across an average conservative here who thinks that stuff. 

If you could find folks like that just walking around, they're also likely to believe the cell phone company and NSA have taken a personal interest in them (vs. the average person who is well aware that their data patterns are stored and someone may look through them - but we're all in a school of fish here, not everyone gets eaten). 

My comparison to the cell phone is purposeful - the whole world acted surprised to find that there are data collection centers that weren't ever disclosed, and then more people acted surprised to find out that their governments did it, too. 

Not a whole lot surprises me, or most anyone at this point (but pretending that there's widespread surprise sells on the news - it gives everyone what they really want - the chance to get mad on behalf of someone in the story, or to feel smart because they think the people on the news are stupid). I"m kind of tired of it from all sides.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Maybe you can answer one of my burning questions for America. Trump has said that liberals "want everyone to think like them" as if it's some assault on people's freedom of speech.
> 
> Yet what I see from Trump supporters is that they want an America that's populated by white Christians. If you're not "one of them" (ie think like them) then you're not American.
> 
> Liberal positions say "accept everyone as an individual". That's not telling you what to think, it's telling you to be a kind, nonjudgmental person. The right wing says hate gays, blacks, transgender, immigrants, Mexicans...whatever. Just write a huge list of people to hate.
> 
> SO my question - which Americans are right? In the most individualist society on earth, do the "accept individuals" win, or do the "you must be like us before you can be an individual" win?



You may be new to politics, but I'd gather most people in most societies want people opposite of them to think like them. Of course both political parts here are like that. Political parties are like pro wrestling booking plans. It's easy to rouse people if you can convince them who they're rooting for first and then wait and not ever have to deal with telling anyone why (reasonably). 

I'm sure that nothing like this occurs re: brexit, that both sides are pleased to have tea and discuss differences calmly. 

(I play both sides of this as a fence sitter, agitating individuals when they talk about "what other people should be forced to do" just after they talk about freedom being important. Which version of freedom - to do what you want them to do or to do what they want to do?).


----------



## lurker

Why get worked up about a country far away ?
They have never been concerned about us except to take advantage.
Sorry DW obviously not aimed at you.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Antifa means "anti-fascist". If you disagree with this view (they're not a group) then that says to me that you agree with fascism.
> 
> This isn't rocket science. Last night I saw a republican tweet "antifa scum" as if being against fascism makes you a bad person.
> 
> You're saying that being anti-fascist is FRINGE?
> 
> God. Bless. America.



I think if you believe antifa is anti-fascism because that's the name, you're in the weeds. Much like the earth protesters who burned cars at car dealerships. They're interested in their brand of absolutism. They're literally the equivalent of the people they claim to detest, and the people who claim to detest them and work at all costs in the other direction to shout everyone else down are just the same. 

Sitting in the middle, I'm fairly hesitant to identify with any of the violent protesters on either side, or agree one is worse than the other. They're both part of the problem.


----------



## D_W

lurker said:


> Why get worked up about a country far away ?
> They have never been concerned about us except to take advantage.
> Sorry DW obviously not aimed at you.



No offense taken - it's accurate. In the united states, we don't really spend much time getting involved or learning about the day to day news elsewhere, and to be frank, we get pretty annoyed when someone clogs our news up with stuff about the queen. We have a couple of scottish and english friends who visit from time to time. They're appalled that we don't have channels concerned only with international news ("you're uninformed") - we just really don't care. I kind of prefer that to the version that shows up first with international coverage, which is news for admonishment ("look how they act over there in ____"). 

My line to folks in the US who say they could never live somewhere else ("look in___, they're not even allowed to ____"). My favorite thing to say is "no, I'd bet it's more likely that you could live there just fine and if you did, you'd point at another place and say you couldn't live there, but you'd be able to do it just like they do and you'd probably agree with them if you lived with them". 

Being apolitical for the purpose of staying out of the verisimilitude doesn't really get you any pals here, but it also saves you from hearing the trash on the extremes of both ends that really is not much different than professional wrestling characters, and to the objectives, not any more believable.


----------



## billw

lurker said:


> Why get worked up about a country far away ?
> They have never been concerned about us except to take advantage.
> Sorry DW obviously not aimed at you.



Because the US is the global hegemon and the world reacts to them. Imagine sitting in Beijing or Moscow now and thinking "well, this is what democracy gets you". They have a point - this IS what democracy gets us. Division. Why do they need to fight us when we can destroy ourselves?


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> I think if you believe antifa is anti-fascism because that's the name, you're in the weeds. Much like the earth protesters who burned cars at car dealerships. They're interested in their brand of absolutism. They're literally the equivalent of the people they claim to detest, and the people who claim to detest them and work at all costs in the other direction to shout everyone else down are just the same.
> 
> Sitting in the middle, I'm fairly hesitant to identify with any of the violent protesters on either side, or agree one is worse than the other. They're both part of the problem.



I don't subscribe to the notion that being anti-fascist or anti-racist is in any way the same as being involved in the Proud Boys or Three Percenters or whatever. It boils down to basic human decency. 

Agree to disagree though, this won't change views.


----------



## D_W

That's sort of a weak out. Antifa is a protest group that encourages violence. Anti-fascist groups tend to work in the courts for legislative change, not in masked protests swinging things at other people. I can spot your bias from the center - you may not feel like it's bias, but your posts have the mark of simplistic character making:

"these people are doing things for basic human decency and these people are not". 

Neither is. Be realistic. It's convenient to say things like that, but it goes back to verisimilitude.


----------



## Droogs

That's what happens when you sit on yer arrse for 4 years and do Ef all to stop demigogues and anarchist knobs. As some pompous git said years ago " All that evil requires is that good men do nothing" or words to that effect. Trumps pish should have been stamped out on the 2nd day of his service and harshly. But then we've done sod all on this side of the pond with our own Napoleans. Ah well come the revolution (hopefully).


----------



## BRYAN

Of course the election was free and fair.
All presidents pre Trump have invaded or attacked other countries to allow such. It's what they do.


----------



## selectortone

billw said:


> - this IS what democracy gets us. Division.



The irony is that in the case of the USA, apart from the loony fringes, the two parties are BOTH to the right of centre compared with European democracies - it's just a matter of degree. You might say the same for the vast majority of Americans. I say this as someone who worked for a very large US multinational, and visited the US on many occasions. The idea that the millionaire Bernie Sanders is a socialist when compared to, say, Joseph Stalin, is laughable.


----------



## Jacob

selectortone said:


> The irony is that in the case of the USA, apart from the loony fringes, the two parties, are BOTH to the right of centre compared with European democracies - it's just a matter of degree. You might say the same for the vast majority of Americans. I say this as someone who worked for a very large US multinational, and visited the US on many occasions. The idea that the millionaire Bernie Sanders is a socialist when compared to, say, Joseph Stalin, is laughable.


The idea that Stalin was a socialist is also laughable. 
Sanders sounds like a middle of the road democratic socialist in the European manner. Not too dogmatic/ideological/radical but humanitarian and pragmatic.
USA problems might be over when they finally get a black/latino/native american majority in government.


----------



## billw

selectortone said:


> The irony is that in the case of the USA, apart from the loony fringes, the two parties are BOTH to the right of centre compared with European democracies - it's just a matter of degree. You might say the same for the vast majority of Americans. I say this as someone who worked for a very large US multinational, and visited the US on many occasions. The idea that the millionaire Bernie Sanders is a socialist when compared to, say, Joseph Stalin, is laughable.



Completely agree, their concept of left/right very different to ours. Also a lot of Americans think there's no difference between socialism and communism because they're both "left wing".


----------



## billw

Jacob said:


> USA problems might be over when they finally get a black/latino/native american majority in government.



Which will still be opposed by a Republican party filled with old white men defending the second amendment,


----------



## TheUnicorn

Jacob said:


> The difference between BLM movements and the Trump faction is that the former are fighting _for_ civil rights and democracy but the latter against. They are not equivalent and opposite.



Have to respectfully disagree with you. Whilst personally I couldn't agree with them in a million years, if you are one of the 47% of republicans (according to a you.gov poll today) that believes the steal is real, then you ARE fighting for civil rights and democracy. IF I truly believed, and had been told again and again, that one political party or the other was attempting, by falsifying results, to essentially take over my country, I'd conceivably feel that I would be not only justified, but compelled to stop them in whatever way I could.

I'm not saying that individuals are not responsable for their actions, just that those actions are based on percieved truth, as a basis for personal morality.


----------



## selectortone

Jacob said:


> The idea that Stalin was a socialist is also laughable.
> Sanders sounds like a middle of the road democratic socialist in the European manner. Not too dogmatic/ideological/radical but humanitarian and pragmatic.
> USA problems might be over when they finally get a black/latino/native american majority in government.


My point was that Americans often, in their somewhat skewed world view, DO compare Mr Sanders with Stalin.

p.s. I'm conscious that there is a least one American reading this and no offence is intended.


----------



## billw

TheUnicorn said:


> Have to respectfully disagree with you. Whilst personally I couldn't agree with them in a million years, if you are one of the 47% of republicans (according to a you.gov poll today) that believes the steal is real, then you ARE fighting for civil rights and democracy. IF I truly believed, and had been told again and again, that one political party or the other was attempting, by falsifying results, to essentially take over my country, I'd conceivably feel that I would be not only justified, but compelled to stop them in whatever way I could.
> 
> I'm not saying that individuals are not responsable for their actions, just that those actions are based on percieved truth, as a basis for personal morality.



This is true, but they believe it's real purely through repetition of lies. There;'s been no evidence, just repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories, but these people are so far down the rabbit hole that they take any repudiation of their theories as further proof that there's a cover up. The right-wing media won't cave in, so you're left with an absolutely ireconcilable difference.

America doesn't like losers, as many of my American friends tell me. The lengths they'll go to to avoid being labelled as such is becoming worryingly clear.


----------



## selectortone

billw said:


> Completely agree, their concept of left/right very different to ours. Also a lot of Americans think there's no difference between socialism and communism because they're both "left wing".


Exactly


----------



## Jacob

TheUnicorn said:


> Have to respectfully disagree with you. Whilst personally I couldn't agree with them in a million years, if you are one of the 47% of republicans (according to a you.gov poll today) that believes the steal is real, then you ARE fighting for civil rights and democracy. IF I truly believed, and had been told again and again, that one political party or the other was attempting, by falsifying results, to essentially take over my country, I'd conceivably feel that I would be not only justified, but compelled to stop them in whatever way I could.
> 
> I'm not saying that individuals are not responsable for their actions, just that those actions are based on percieved truth, as a basis for personal morality.


Hmm. A tangled web! 
I'd say these actions are based on a quasi religious faith in their leadership and/or ideology i.e. faith in _somebody else's_ perception of the truth.


----------



## TheUnicorn

Jacob said:


> Hmm. A tangled web!
> I'd say these actions are based on a quasi religious faith in their leadership and/or ideology i.e. faith in _somebody else's_ perception of the truth.


yeah, Americans of both parties do seem to be worship the flag in a way that is inconceivable here


----------



## clogs

wot and nobody has mentioned Guy Fawkes......those were the days......hahaha...

I just luv this forum.....


----------



## Jacob

clogs said:


> wot and nobody has mentioned Guy Fawkes......those were the days......hahaha...
> 
> I just luv this forum.....


Or Hitler! Too soon perhaps.


----------



## Fitzroy

TheUnicorn said:


> Have to respectfully disagree with you. Whilst personally I couldn't agree with them in a million years, if you are one of the 47% of republicans (according to a you.gov poll today) that believes the steal is real, then you ARE fighting for civil rights and democracy. IF I truly believed, and had been told again and again, that one political party or the other was attempting, by falsifying results, to essentially take over my country, I'd conceivably feel that I would be not only justified, but compelled to stop them in whatever way I could.
> 
> I'm not saying that individuals are not responsable for their actions, just that those actions are based on percieved truth, as a basis for personal morality.



I agree. However I'm reminded of a scene from Men In Black. Trump tells lies to manipulate the people, if he believes these lies he is insane, if he tells them knowingly he is criminal and implicit in the death of the protestor.

Edwards : Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.

Kay : A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.


----------



## Jacob

Fitzroy said:


> ...... People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.


and when they get together it's called "a mob"


----------



## Jacob

TheUnicorn said:


> yeah, Americans of both parties do seem to be worship the flag in a way that is inconceivable here


Gets close on Poppy Day!


----------



## Trainee neophyte

TheUnicorn said:


> yeah, Americans of both parties do seem to be worship the flag in a way that is inconceivable here


Substitute NHS for flag. Same difference.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> Substitute NHS for flag. Same difference.


An exceptionally silly remark!
Had a cataract op on Monday courtesy of the NHS. Americans please note this was entirely free of charge  including several cups of tea and some digestive biscuits! They would have picked me up and taken me back home if needed, also free.
I can't see any connection at all with flag worship. Would waving the St George flag have helped me see? Do American flag wavers get free medical care, or any benefit at all for that matter?
Incidentally, having mentioned it I must say the result was amazing and I can now see better than I have for the last 50 years. Even the colours are better. Sight with the other eye has a yellowish tinge - possibly nicotine stains from the bad old days.
Whom should I thank - St George or Aneurin Bevan?


----------



## artie

Jacob said:


> An exceptionally silly remark!
> Had a cataract op on Monday courtesy of the NHS. Americans please note this was entirely free of charge


When will people stop this pineapples.
It was not free.


----------



## Jacob

artie said:


> When will people stop this pineapples.
> It was not free.


Oh yes it was, I didn't pay a penny.


----------



## billw

TheUnicorn said:


> yeah, Americans of both parties do seem to be worship the flag in a way that is inconceivable here



I do find it interesting that Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, yet never question why, and if you dare try then you're not patriotic.


----------



## billw

artie said:


> When will people stop this pineapples.
> It was not free.



Free at point of service is what we mean by free. Sure, you indirectly pay but the point is that you don't pay for what treatment you get. I've probably net contributed to the NHS in my life since I've never spent a day in hospital and rarely go to the doctor except for routine blood tests etc. However whatever I DO get is, in my mind, free.


----------



## JohnPW

billw said:


> I do find it interesting that Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, yet never question why, and if you dare try then you're not patriotic.



They're forced to from a young age. I believe every school has a ceremony everyday pledging allegiance to the flag. The flag is sacred symbol in the US.

I'm not American so correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

billw said:


> It wouldn't surprise me.


I think that Trump is probably more vulnerable to an Iranian drone attack....


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Jacob said:


> The idea that Stalin was a socialist is also laughable.
> Sanders sounds like a middle of the road democratic socialist in the European manner. Not too dogmatic/ideological/radical but humanitarian and pragmatic.
> USA problems might be over when they finally get a black/latino/native american majority in government.


There is a similarity between Trump and Stalin in that they both specialised in anti-truth - was it Stalin (or someone on the internet) who said that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth...


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> The idea that Stalin was a socialist is also laughable.
> Sanders sounds like a middle of the road democratic socialist in the European manner. Not too dogmatic/ideological/radical but humanitarian and pragmatic.
> USA problems might be over when they finally get a black/latino/native american majority in government.



your posts are always good for humor, jacob. Bernie is a lot like the idealists on your side of the water - they are full of platitudes and short of ever getting thing done in their careers. When they are made head of something, they freeze. 

Let's be realistic about what will happen in the states. Biden is officially elected now, certified. He will be inaugurated on time, and Trump will leave. If he doesn't, he will assisted in moving if that's a challenge. 

Sanders is a moron who stared straight ahead and gave fallacies and platitudes when challenged. Ever see someone who responds in a debate by looking away from you and talking? It's clear why people do that. 

We don't need the far other side, either - the "free market moral legislators" given that the united states is already fairly socialist (if you don't have money, you get free food, free housing, free medical - you just have to be willing to be out of money to get that and then go through filing for the benefits). 

One of the comical things over here is when people say we don't want to be socialist, and you start listing programs:
* social security
* unemployment
* disability
* medicare
* medicaid
* housing assistance
* income -limited health care premiums (you get limited service options, but realistically, the limited service avenues are more expedient than most european health care systems - and still more expensive - just not to the user)
* food assistance
* job training assistance
* university subsidies for probably more than half of college students
* state health and free child's health benefits for low income
* free phones
* subsidization of food production (cheaper here probably than anywhere else in the world)

Of course, being a middle of the road fence sitter, when I hear a conservative talk about how we want to be capitalist and free market, and they're over 65, I ask which of the above benefits they'd like to give up. 

If you're going to be intellectually honest, you can't really have political friends.


----------



## doctor Bob

Seems to me that the general public won't accept a vote these days unless there is a clear margin.


----------



## D_W

Comparisons to the US political situation and Stalin or Hitler are absolute stupidity, by the way. Maybe you can entertain yourself with that kind of nonsense, but the government here is still functioning as normal, and despite the noise, so are the elections. 

The people involved in the protests will probably be rewarded by getting FBI profiles and difficulty flying or passing job-related background checks. 

It's not as if they're just playing on jungle gyms and there are no consequences.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> Seems to me that the general public won't accept a vote these days unless there is a clear margin.


Well yes, but nothing new about it. If there's nothing in it you can toss a coin. If it's an important issue a big margin is required. 
This was Cameron's big stupid brexit mistake.


----------



## D_W

doctor Bob said:


> Seems to me that the general public won't accept a vote these days unless there is a clear margin.



There are two things you can count on, each with prior bits of truth:
* democrats will complain about the electoral college and describe the president elected based on that setup as illegitimate
* republicans will elect voter fraud

(chicago and some other areas were rife with voter fraud many decades ago - I doubt voter fraud exists now in more than small pockets, and not bigger than legitimate errors and mistakes in vote counting)

90% of the people in the US, at least, are perfectly satisfied with the election results, even if they're not happy. Sorry if that doesn't make good TV.


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> Well yes, but nothing new about it. If there's nothing in it you can toss a coin. If it's an important issue a big margin is required.
> This was Cameron's big stupid brexit mistake.



So does that mean that you think the US election is too close to give a winner. Should it be 60%+


----------



## Awac

I just can't stop thinking Donald J Targaryen, the Mad king running around the White house screaming "Burn them all"....maybe Mike Pence will turn out to be the King-slayer.....LOL.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> So does that mean that you think the US election is too close to give a winner. Should it be 60%+


It was pretty conclusive US election results 2020: Joe Biden's defeat of Donald Trump
I see your point.
In reality the USA election isn't a major change in the constitution or anything - it's routine in spite of appearances to the contrary, with a fixed timetable to be repeated
But Brexit represented a huge shift for ourselves, Europe and a whole generation on how we live, with major changes, a one off, never to be repeated, possibly irreversible


----------



## D_W

TheUnicorn said:


> Have to respectfully disagree with you. Whilst personally I couldn't agree with them in a million years, if you are one of the 47% of republicans (according to a you.gov poll today) that believes the steal is real, then you ARE fighting for civil rights and democracy. IF I truly believed, and had been told again and again, that one political party or the other was attempting, by falsifying results, to essentially take over my country, I'd conceivably feel that I would be not only justified, but compelled to stop them in whatever way I could.
> 
> I'm not saying that individuals are not responsable for their actions, just that those actions are based on percieved truth, as a basis for personal morality.



Here's how I see it sitting as a disagreeable independent. There are a few instances of voter fraud. They are numbers in the thousands. The number of votes is probably over 100 million. They inconsequential noise. 

There is no court provable significant voter fraud, and if you can't prove it in court, it's not actionable. 

I would bet in private that the vast majority of republicans believe that there is some voter fraud and without it biden won. Some part of the small group of noisemakers isn't sharp enough to understand that there is a difference between:
* yes there is some voter fraud and double voting (there always has been), but it's not enough to make a meaningful difference
* same as above, but it's election changing

I have had actual conversations with some people who are in the second bullet point - I ask them "do you think any republicans voted twice? I think you could find some, have you looked for them, too? And, if the people who say they know lots about fraud are one or two, and they can't bring anything to court, then do you believe they really have something? The others who tell a story and go away are likely paid by someone, and it could be anyone - do you think it's beyond the scope of an antifa funder or enthusiast to pay someone to give that narrative from the republican side?"

If I really wanted some traction from the right wing side, I'd infiltrate antifa and pay some people to say really stupid outlandish things. That's far more damaging than beating your own drum. 

I think I will be proven right in the end, that this is all noise, biden will be President, and MAGA will become a fading "brand" filled with people looking for UFOs and elvis.


----------



## D_W

JohnPW said:


> They're forced to from a young age. I believe every school has a ceremony everyday pledging allegiance to the flag. The flag is sacred symbol in the US.
> 
> I'm not American so correct me if I'm wrong.



I think you guys are off track about both sides of the aisle worshipping the flag. You should actually live here. Some part of the conservative side uses the flag as a figurative thing (a sign of a 1700s constitutional ideal). I haven't met any democrats except some centrists who served in the military who so much as even own a flag that they could fly. We note that you guys in the UK are more likely to have one of your flags on clothes or sports uniforms. 

The pledge is said in schools, but it's not compulsory. I have no clue where it came from, but probably somewhere in the 1920s as some part of some act. Kids are at home here - I haven't heard the pledge in teleschool, which I note because I would suggest that it would be weird seeming -I remember saying the pledge when I was a kid. There were conscientious objectors even in my school (jehovahs' witnesses were not permitted to recite it). I don't remember anything remotely close to discipline for them (there were others, too). 

It's probably convenient to show the whole flag thing on TV ("look at the MAGAs shouting USA USA!!"). Areas that have a large minority population sometimes ban clothing with stars and stripes on them as divisive or not inclusive. 

Seeing a flag in my neighborhood of 350 houses is fairly unusual unless it's memorial day or july 4th. There are yard signs everywhere with sayings like "hate has no home here" or "however you say hello, wherever you're from, whatever language you speak at home, you're welcome here". 

My neighborhood is middle class and probably a 50/50 political mix. When you get to rural areas, you may see things like rocks arranged to say "TRUMP" or buildings with american flags painted on roofs or something, but it's the minority. It was common for citizens to have a flag pole when I was a kid (70s/80s), but it no longer is. I think the reason for that is at the time, there were plenty of veterans and children of veterans alive and there was constant peddling of the threat of the soviets, etc. That stuff is all gone now. Both sides of the aisle use the chinese and russians for scary stories only when it's convenient.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> Comparisons to the US political situation and Stalin or Hitler are absolute stupidity, by the way



Yes of course, however making comparisons of right wing populism and facism are quite useful

Populism

division of society into two camps, “the people” and “the elites”
a proud antagonism toward intellectuals
the rejection of culture and knowledge in favor of instinct
the promotion of polarizing views
demonization of one’s opponent
a contempt for judiciary, military, and political powers
a strong intolerance of free press
Facism

the cult of tradition and the past, of action over thought, of machismo
the fear of difference
the appeal to a frustrated middle class
the obsession with international conspiracies
an exaggeration of the power of enemies
the demonization of “rotten” parliamentary governments
the use of simple, impoverished language
the glorification of the people as a monolith holding common views

“populism combines low level actual violence with high level rhetorical violence,” applying it to “an authoritarian way of understanding democracy.” In that is another important distinction between fascism and populism: “fascism is never a democracy, while populism undermines democracy, but doesn’t remove it.


Populism may not be facism, but it's still very dangerous.

Populism is the rule of mob, it is not democracy.

Populism is the "will of the people"..... I wonder where we might've heard that in the UK


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> There are a few instances of voter fraud. They are numbers in the thousands. The number of votes is probably over 100 million. They inconsequential noise



Sadly a common method of conspiracy theories takes an inconsequential percentage and conflates it to give it equivalence to the truth.

Trump has been using it for "voter fraud", but we see the same with climate change and of course with Covid.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Jacob said:


> An exceptionally silly remark!
> Had a cataract op on Monday courtesy of the NHS. Americans please note this was entirely free of charge  including several cups of tea and some digestive biscuits! They would have picked me up and taken me back home if needed, also free.
> I can't see any connection at all with flag worship. Would waving the St George flag have helped me see? Do American flag wavers get free medical care, or any benefit at all for that matter?
> Incidentally, having mentioned it I must say the result was amazing and I can now see better than I have for the last 50 years. Even the colours are better. Sight with the other eye has a yellowish tinge - possibly nicotine stains from the bad old days.
> Whom should I thank - St George or Aneurin Bevan?


Totally free so you have never worked and never paid any tax?


----------



## Jacob

Billy_wizz said:


> Totally free so you have never worked and never paid any tax?


Yes totally free, no payment asked for, no credit card demanded, no insurance documents, no prior estimate, no questions asked - even if I'd never worked or paid tax.
How the system is paid for is entirely separate, which I can see causes confusion!


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> I think you guys are off track about both sides of the aisle worshipping the flag. You should actually live here. Some part of the conservative side uses the flag as a figurative thing (a sign of a 1700s constitutional ideal). I haven't met any democrats except some centrists who served in the military who so much as even own a flag that they could fly. We note that you guys in the UK are more likely to have one of your flags on clothes or sports uniforms.
> 
> The pledge is said in schools, but it's not compulsory. I have no clue where it came from, but probably somewhere in the 1920s as some part of some act. Kids are at home here - I haven't heard the pledge in teleschool, which I note because I would suggest that it would be weird seeming -I remember saying the pledge when I was a kid. There were conscientious objectors even in my school (jehovahs' witnesses were not permitted to recite it). I don't remember anything remotely close to discipline for them (there were others, too).
> 
> It's probably convenient to show the whole flag thing on TV ("look at the MAGAs shouting USA USA!!"). Areas that have a large minority population sometimes ban clothing with stars and stripes on them as divisive or not inclusive.
> 
> Seeing a flag in my neighborhood of 350 houses is fairly unusual unless it's memorial day or july 4th. There are yard signs everywhere with sayings like "hate has no home here" or "however you say hello, wherever you're from, whatever language you speak at home, you're welcome here".
> 
> My neighborhood is middle class and probably a 50/50 political mix. When you get to rural areas, you may see things like rocks arranged to say "TRUMP" or buildings with american flags painted on roofs or something, but it's the minority. It was common for citizens to have a flag pole when I was a kid (70s/80s), but it no longer is. I think the reason for that is at the time, there were plenty of veterans and children of veterans alive and there was constant peddling of the threat of the soviets, etc. That stuff is all gone now. Both sides of the aisle use the chinese and russians for scary stories only when it's convenient.



Obviously this doesn't make good TV so we don't see it.

ps.. I own no clothing with an English or UK flag on it!


----------



## gregmcateer

DW,
It's refreshing to hear your thoughts from your side of the pond - the news and social media does tend to inflate the pictures of tensions on 'both' sides.

What I think we find shocking, is that whilst the normal folks like you, who are either non political or in the middle ground, are clearly there and probably in the majority, it isn't surprising us onlookers feel shock - after all, it isn't just the Proud Boys etc, it is your PRESIDENT who's been pumping out hyperbole and exaggeration since he started campaigning for the 2016 election.


----------



## mikej460

I've just read this whole thread and it echoes the fascination we foreigners have in American political affairs, especially since Trump took office. My take on this is that there's good and bad in everybody, every country and every race where the majority of people are law abiding decent people; however, there are always the minority, the antithesis who for whatever reason or goal do the wrong in this world. When I first started to watch Trump on TV I questioned how can one man manipulate ordinary, reasoning, law abiding folk to follow him and his right wing, and all too often, extremist views. Then I reasoned that this has happened throughout millennia and has never ended well because the majority, those decent human beings, always prevail. The problem then is where this extremism exists in the fabric of a country's leadership, where people live in varying degrees of oppression - now that's a whole new topic.


----------



## Jake

doctor Bob said:


> Seems to me that the general public won't accept a vote these days unless there is a clear margin.



Not really the issue is it Bob, the issue is what you do if you don't like the result - campaign for another democratic event or storm the democratic institutions and try to take over by force.


----------



## Billy_wizz

Jacob said:


> Yes totally free, no payment asked for, no credit card demanded, no insurance documents, no prior estimate, no questions asked - even if I'd never worked or paid tax.
> How the system is paid for is entirely separate, which I can see causes confusion!


We obviously have very different interpretations of free! In my eyes if you pay for something it's not free even if you collect it at a different time to paying for it


----------



## Droogs

It's not just the muppet that needs to be removed it is all the GOP eejits that have enabled him to do this esp McConnell and the other arrogant buttocks Ted Cruz


----------



## RobinBHM

Billy_wizz said:


> We obviously have very different interpretations of free! In my eyes if you pay for something it's not free even if you collect it at a different time to paying for it


It is free at the point of delivery, it is not means tested nor determined by pre existing conditions.

USA private system is a terrible system, far more expensive than the UK system and wholly driven by profit.

Imagine having to choose between selling your house or buying drugs for your child......most common cause of bankruptcy in USA; non payment of medical bills


----------



## billw

Droogs said:


> It's not just the muppet that needs to be removed it is all the GOP eejits that have enabled him to do this esp McConnell and the other arrogant buttocks Ted Cruz



Calls from the Republican party in Texas for him to resign.


----------



## billw

RobinBHM said:


> Imagine having to choose between selling your house or buying drugs for your child......most common cause of bankruptcy in USA; non payment of medical bills



I worked out of an office in North Carolina for one company, and one of the guys there had been involved in an RTA that wasn't his fault - hit by a truck so some pretty major surgery required. He showed me the invoices.....bloody hell. Well into six figures.

It's weird to see so many Americans frothing at the mouth at the thought of "socialist" healthcare but at the same time being happy to pay hundreds of dollars a month to an insurer where the money goes towards healthcare and profit rather than giving hundreds of dollars to the government for just healthcare. Yes there's a choice in the latter situation but would anyone who could afford it risk NOT buying insurance?


----------



## Fitzroy

If you’re fairly affluent then it’s actually quite sensible to self insure, ie put money aside each month, to cover smaller things. Ie phones loss, jewellery, bikes etc these items add considerable cost to many policies as so many people are bloody hopeless at looking after their property. However to self insure for Heath care you’d need to be Elon Musk. 

Fitz.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Imagine having to choose between selling your house or buying drugs for your child......most common cause of bankruptcy in USA; non payment of medical bills



Ok - sensational. Let's assume that you're in a situation in the US where you have a very sick child and run your assets out. First, the state CHIP program would provide insurance for your child (free) before you got there, but if you were also sick, you'd get disability and medicaid and the disability for your child. You are required to have assets below a certain level if you're getting medicaid, and not have separate income that you're hiding while you collect disability and medicaid, but you are not required to give up your house. If you have no money and a house, you have no money - not "you're not out of money until you sell the house". 

There are a lot of people who have the means to buy insurance and think they'll risk it and they *do* get stuck in a medical bakruptcy, but if that occurs, you can discharge the bankruptcy in a filing and start over. If you have the money to pay the bill and you're uninsured, then you're stuck paying. 

How far does the disability go? We have some well to do friends with a disabled child (born disabled, but think almost functional - just not quite). They collect disability for their child (which I don't have a problem with, by the way) and their child gets medicaid (which I don't have a problem with). Their means aren't considered with that - the system just provides them additional income and also provides their child with free medical coverage. 

I'm sure this kind of truth won't be popular. 

One of the biggest groups of risk takers in going uninsured, though, is small business owners. People start a business, they want to plow all of their money into it, so they take a risk. Then, the business becomes more comfortable and they just decide to keep kicking getting insurance down the road further. 

There is one big hole in the system here, though, and that is early retirees who *do* have assets. Coverage for someone age 60 or so is about $20k for a very high value policy. If you budget for it, no problem. If you don't, you keep working - you won't be eligible for early medicare unless you qualify for disability for some reason, but if you do, I'm not sure whether or not such people can get medicaid before they run out their assets. It's generally said often here "i have to keep working for the insurance". 

Our tax rates are much lower than the UK, though, so it's generally a matter of discretion. Housing is cheaper here, etc. If you wanted to have a couple with two trade jobs with benefits (which is something anyone can do without going to college, etc. Just go to the local and sign up as an apprentice) and you truly wanted to live spartan, you could make $120k as a pair and bank a large amount of it and be very comfortable (a lot of the trades have free or highly subsidized retiree medical, too. 

All that said - if you want to be lazy, work only part time jobs that are easy and never really get motivated - this isn't the greatest place to do it.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I worked out of an office in North Carolina for one company, and one of the guys there had been involved in an RTA that wasn't his fault - hit by a truck so some pretty major surgery required. He showed me the invoices.....bloody hell. Well into six figures.
> 
> It's weird to see so many Americans frothing at the mouth at the thought of "socialist" healthcare but at the same time being happy to pay hundreds of dollars a month to an insurer where the money goes towards healthcare and profit rather than giving hundreds of dollars to the government for just healthcare. Yes there's a choice in the latter situation but would anyone who could afford it risk NOT buying insurance?



small business owners do it quite often - but they're usually risk takers just based on the fact that they're starting small businesses. People who are risk seekers sometimes get stuck doing really dumb things, though. 

Health care for a person age 40 is probably about 400-500 a month. If you're self employed and making bank at some smart little gig, it's not really that expensive. 

I'd prefer to have less generous insurance and less expedient care at half the cost, but I guess most of the country doesn't agree (as in, I'd be fine with NHS type care). You can tell me the care is just as good there, but you're full of it (just that it doesn't matter to me). I've got an english pal who got me into woodworking who is of means and one of his constant rails is the NHS after getting spoiled here. Same with a work transfer couple here who stayed in london 3 years. I asked them about health care and they said "we didn't use it except in emergencies - it's abhorrent". Small community emergency centers that didn't have xrays, and such things. I guess you can save money, but having an emergency care center without the ability to give an xray to a kid who breaks a leg, taking several hours or the better part of a day being sent somewhere else and waiting for care - no thanks. 

WE are off in the other direction, though - you can get point of service care anywhere in a suburban area. No restriction and the princely sum of it costing another $10 for me over my regular PCP. Even the PCP takes walk-ins now to try to compete with it (so I would just go to my own doc's office without an appointment - probably be forced to see another doc at the place, but I could just walk in there 6 days a week and the visit is covered no questions asked). That, in my opinion, leads to overutilization. Catering to demanding customers who don't want to be told "you're fine for now, you don't' need a script and you can come back in a month and we'll look again", also not a help.


----------



## billw

@D_W we do have private healthcare here too where you can basically stay in a posh hospital and probably get treated by the same bloke who'd do the surgery on the NHS except he charges a lot more  

No emergency treatment though, private usually only covers stuff like surgeries, scans, physiotherapy etc.


----------



## D_W

our friends had an instance of a child who has attention deficit. He functions well on stimulants. I don't know the full story of what they were telling me (I admit I wasn't fully paying attention), but it was something along the lines of NHS not thinking it was really a "thing", or at least not with the stimulant that he responds to. What is the follow-up for someone like that?

Here, you can run into docs who think the same thing "we're not going to prescribe an advantage for your child", which is pretty narrow minded. The remedy is to switch docs here, or even switch medical systems if the medical system polices are a poor fit.


----------



## D_W

(but the 18-20% of GDP cost of our health system is a real turnoff to me - I'll repeat that. There's got to be more to life than instant healthcare).


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> our friends had an instance of a child who has attention deficit. He functions well on stimulants. I don't know the full story of what they were telling me (I admit I wasn't fully paying attention), but it was something along the lines of NHS not thinking it was really a "thing", or at least not with the stimulant that he responds to. What is the follow-up for someone like that?



Private GP and private prescriptions.

Not sure if you can get insurance that covers that sort of thing though.


----------



## Droogs

I do think our system of paying roughly 20 quid a week for a national insurance stamp and getting a health service free at point of need is probably the greatest social achievement in the history of civilization. the fact that everyone gets the help they need is great, yes there are problems in certain areas but i the main they are caused by capitalist greed like the wheelchair situation


----------



## Terry - Somerset

The US spends 17.6% of GDP on health care, the UK 9.8%. 

Double the money should provide a more flexible better service. It also provides the headroom for inefficiencies, poor management, unnecesary treatments etc..

What the extra money demonstrably does not do is provide free at the point of use universal health care - the principal reason the NHS is held in such high regard.

That headline US personal taxes are lower is simplistic - if the cost of health insurance is $5-20k depending on age etc, any tax comparison should take this into account.

This is not intended as a critcism. The US should democratically decide on the balance between public and private provision of services. 

But is does illustrate a very fundamental difference in culture and expectation. As always two countries divided by a common language!


----------



## D_W

I think you'll find that the average income in the us after taxes and medical insurance is still higher than the uk after tax. Just to start, the GDP per capita is enough larger to cover the health care cost..


----------



## TRITON

Developed into a health care debate though currently there seems to be no need to have insurance if youve caught covid.

Scenes in the capitol building were horrific, and i do stand against such behaviour though at the same time feel terrible about the death of that poor woman. The policeman overstepped his bounds and there was no need to fire. She could have been grabbed and wrestled to the floor.

Donald Trump has blood on his hands from this event, he, more than the rioters should be held to account.


----------



## John Brown

I think the bottom line is this:
In the US, you pay about twice as much for healthcare as in the UK, but the out outcome is worse. However, you can have hotel quality accommodation while receiving your overpriced, inferior healthcare. Also, you have the freedom to badger your doctor into prescribing the drug with the biggest advertising budget. It's unlikely to change, as there's too much money involved, and the "I'm alright, Jack" attitude of many citizens. Medical mistakes are the 3rd largest cause of death in the US, according to some statistics.
The very fact that D_W has written so much on this subject is very telling. Average wages are higher, but minimum wages are, in some places, abysmal. A lot of goods and services are now more expensive than in the UK, whereas a decade or two ago, they were cheaper.
Americans are brainwashed into believing that they are the best country in the world, whereas in reality, they fall short by so many metrics.


----------



## Vann

D_W said:


> ...Sitting in the middle, I'm fairly hesitant to identify with any of the violent protesters on either side, or agree one is worse than the other. They're both part of the problem.


But are you sitting in the middle? You say they're both part of the problem, but how is it that BLM protesters, who are just wanting the right to not be shot in the street because of the colour of their skin, are part of the problem?

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann

El Barto said:


> ...forcefully gaining entry to a government building in order to change the results of a legitimate election is not the same thing as rioting...


Shades of the Hong Kong protests? I'll bet the mainland Chinese government considered the students (and others) to be forcefully gaining entry to a government building in order to change the results of a 'legitimate' law.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Jacob

Droogs said:


> I do think our system of paying roughly 20 quid a week for a national insurance stamp and getting a health service free at point of need is probably the greatest social achievement in the history of civilization. the fact that everyone gets the help they need is great, yes there are problems in certain areas but i the main they are caused by capitalist greed like the wheelchair situation


You get the full NHS treatment even if you haven't paid the £20 a week for whatever reason, which is what distinguishes it from any private system, along with the fact that state organisation is highly cost effective. We pay much less per capita than Americans and get a much better service. Even Cubans have better healthcare then USA
People keep saying free 'at point of use' as though it's not really free. But anything 'free' is either paid for by somebody else or has some sort of cost somewhere down the line.


----------



## Auldfart2010

Where were we? Oh yeah!
*Invasion of US Capitol building*
Absolutely insane scenes. 

I just witnessed lots of thugs and bullies seeing through red mist in a pitchforks and torches frenzy.


----------



## Jacob

Auldfart2010 said:


> Where were we? Oh yeah!
> *Invasion of US Capitol building*
> Absolutely insane scenes.
> 
> I just witnessed lots of thugs and bullies seeing through red mist in a pitchforks and torches frenzy.


Unfortunately they have a martyr for the cause. Ashli Babbitt got shot breaking through a door. Apparently she was an alt right extremist and threeper etc. Don't know if she was carrying a weapon but some of them were, with molotov cocktails and other stuff.


----------



## billw

John Brown said:


> Americans are brainwashed into believing that they are the best country in the world, whereas in reality, they fall short by so many metrics.



Same as the flag thing. Just do what you're told and be a good patriot, we're the best. Of course "best" is measured in ethnocentric terms where you're inevitably the "best" when you're benchmarking against things you chose yourselves. 

I suppose it's no wonder so many people happily went along with Trump's lies. A person in a position of power repeatedly telling them stuff - it must be true!


----------



## Jonm

Before the invasion of Capitol Hill an american friend of mine who lives in the states told me about the worrying situation. Particularly the following 

“In an extraordinary rebuke of President Donald Trump, all 10 living former secretaries of defense are cautioning against any move to involve the military in pursuing claims of election fraud, arguing that it would take the country into "dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory."”

Basically, all the living former Secretaries of State were saying that the military should obey the constitution and not the president.

What surprises me is that none of this was reported in our main stream TV media. I tried searching the bbc website and found nothing. There were reports in the guardian and US websites.

We get the presidential primaries, campaigns etc ad nausea but nothing about the dangerous political situation developing in the USA until Capitol Hill is invaded.

The mayor of Washington called out the national guard before the rally 









DC Mayor Calls in National Guard Ahead of Pro-Trump Protests


Trump's supporters are planning to rally Tuesday and Wednesday, seeking to bolster the president's unproven claims of widespread voter fraud




www.voanews.com





So where were they when the invasion took place. And it was Pence who called out the National Guard after the invasion and Trump claims he did it









Trump slammed for saying HE called in the National Guard to quell riot


Trump released a short video after being allowed back on Twitter where he blasted the 'heinous' attack and claimed that he had called in the National Guard - a claim disputed by Fox and other outlets.




www.dailymail.co.uk





All very suspicious and worrying. Would not surprise me if Trump call off the national guard and then sent his supporters to Capitol Hill.


----------



## Chris70

I doubt Pence would implement the 25th Amendment and I thought Impeachment2 would be futile, considering only a dozen days remaining, but was heartened to learn that, should the I2 process at least begin, it would prevent this overtly racist President standing again. Is this true, I wonder?


----------



## D_W

Vann said:


> But are you sitting in the middle? You say they're both part of the problem, but how is it that BLM protesters, who are just wanting the right to not be shot in the street because of the colour of their skin, are part of the problem?
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



Are you confusing antifa for BLM? They are two very different groups. 

I walked right through the center of a BLM protest here on my way to public trans before covid and it was quiet and peaceful. I'm white as a sheet. I didn't feel the least bit unsafe and walked right past police and barriers and said the same thing "hi, I'm crossing this - that's my bus coming down the street up there". Nobody so much as batted an eye.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Unfortunately they have a martyr for the cause. Ashli Babbitt got shot breaking through a door. Apparently she was an alt right extremist and threeper etc. Don't know if she was carrying a weapon but some of them were, with molotov cocktails and other stuff.



Jacob, you know she was unarmed, it's all over the media. All or nearly all of the crowd was unarmed, and they were told in exchange at least in parts of the building that the police were, too.

The actual report of reality that another forum member said was they went to the door, they said to the police "we're going in there, and you're not stopping us" and for the most part, the police did the right thing and got out of the way.

The girl got shot because she was in an unlucky place - in front of a nervous police officer. I knew this yesterday morning because it had been relayed that she was unarmed and unluckily in a group of people who was pushing from behind.

That's the risk when you confront police in the US - they are people, and someone will get nervous, but I suspect they'll be paying a settlement. There's no need to villainize the lady, that's juvenile. She took a risk and got shot for no more than trespassing at this point.

Can you imagine if you had some labour hero in an agitated group and they got shot? You'd have a shrine for them. Take your political glasses off - everyone is human.

"unfortunately, someone got killed, so they'll be a hero". No concern for the fact that she got killed, just the threat that someone will be upset by it. pure


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Same as the flag thing. Just do what you're told and be a good patriot, we're the best. Of course "best" is measured in ethnocentric terms where you're inevitably the "best" when you're benchmarking against things you chose yourselves.
> 
> I suppose it's no wonder so many people happily went along with Trump's lies. A person in a position of power repeatedly telling them stuff - it must be true!



Completely inaccurate that the whole of the country here is big on the "do what you're told and be a good patriot". The uniformity here in terms of "doing what you're told" is a lot less than most countries in the world. In the US, frankly, we're a bit surprised when other countries find level of corruption or favoritism in their governments. 

We have the whole spectrum, from people who think government should be very limited to a fairly large group in academia that believes there should be one uniform government for the entire world.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> People keep saying free 'at point of use' as though it's not really free. But anything 'free' is either paid for by somebody else or has some sort of cost somewhere down the line. To keep saying "yebbut it's not really free" looks like early indication of depression to me! (Talk to your doctor about it - it's free!)
> It's a completely redundant comment.



It's close to free for the freeloaders. To criticize someone pointing out that the system has an actual cost is pretty dumb. That would be like me saying that my only costs for health care are copays because my employer pays for most of mine. 

It's not free. Or to say that medicare is free because it is for some people after they pay a minimal premium. 2.9% of our payroll here goes to medicare. 12.4% goes to social security - that's far from free. When you're a taker instead of a payer, it's easy to believe that other peoples' money is easy. It generally leads to an overall average lower standard of living, just with more uniformity. 

I just checked the GDP (size of the economy) per capita in the US vs. the UK:
$63K in the US, $43K in the UK. I guess that affords us a lot of money to waste on healthcare, but nothing is really free. 

America is the place to be, Part 2 
(here's a chart of disposable income from 2010 - I didn't read the article. I don't believe in "this country is better than that one" talk. I could live anywhere). 

If I was going to be a free-rider on the system, though, I probably wouldn't choose rural america. As a retiree with annuity income, it's not so bad. 

What does extra disposable income afford? I'm in my mid 40s, probably effectively finished with retirement savings, no debt (no mortgage) and expect to soon have two of my kids' college funded. The only concessions I've made to get to that is living in a house half as large as someone with my income typically would (1500SF on the main floor, and another 800 basement semi-furnished) and I don't buy new cars often. But I have the choice here. 

The rise of incentivized health care here is starting to mean that even the rural areas (community health systems being bought by larger systems, of obvious reasons - to try to improve utilization and grab territory) have easier access to care than almost anywhere else in the world. 

You can become homeless in the states and live on the street, but it generally requires refusing services or doing anything at all (as in, a lot of addicts end up there because they won't dry out to get free shelter and food and go through a program - they can usually get free food without issue, though).


----------



## Woody2Shoes

D_W said:


> our friends had an instance of a child who has attention deficit. ... I don't know the full story of what they were telling me (I admit I wasn't fully paying attention)....


----------



## D_W

Woody2Shoes said:


>



That was unintentional....but unfortunately, the kernel of truth in it is accurate! (why listen to stories about attention deficit if you're already well experienced with it?)


----------



## MikeJhn

I wonder in the fullness of time if Trump will be prosecuted for in-sighting a riot.


----------



## D_W

Probably not unless someone wants to incite another one. Once he's out, decisions have to be made to move forward, not sideways or backwards. 

It looks like a capitol police officer has also died, but how is not specified. I think that's a shame - on both sides of this. I hope justice is fair on all sides (if the woman was shot wrongly in a melee, I hope that's honestly investigated with a fair and just result, and the same for the officer. 

I'm outta here on the thread -I've said my piece. A lot of the oversimplified narratives you guys believe are a lot like someone over here claiming that the UK is divided into two parts:
1) royalty people who run around feeling self important living on taxpayer dole
2) everyone else trying to figure out the best way to divide their spare time between pub, soccer and watching the royalty on TV while reading tabloids

When, in fact, I know that at least some of the population has other hobbies, like flying to the US and buying a lot of clothes while they're here!!!


----------



## pete seddon

*pain, prejudice, and paranoia*


'' There is a discomfort in talking about the racialized nature of the riot because of the fear that good people might be marked by too broad a brush. Yet it’s clear that a river of rage and anger runs from Jim Crow America to the tiki-torch protests in Charlottesville to the mobs this week that were willing to break doors, barricades, windows and laws on the day Joe Biden was certified to take Trump’s place. Something is being snatched from them and it’s not just money or jobs or security or even the White House. ''
(Washington Post 8/1/21)

*' cornerstone' speech, by Alexander H Stephens, confederacy vice president. 1861*

''Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice. ''

''Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. ''

excerpt from Washington Post - 8/1/21 - some characters & quotes are fictional -
''When it comes to guarding against White extremist violence, America’s so-called thin blue line becomes damn near microscopic.”

“I can see that these White people are angry,” said local D.C. resident Markus Harvie, a member of the country’s Black ethnic minority. “But why are they attacking buildings in their own community? Can’t they just kneel in protest or something? Buildings matter, too.”

''An anonymous law enforcement official tried to explain the discrepancy between why so many Black men and women have been assaulted and arrested for protesting racism, while so few White extremists were arrested on Wednesday. "Well, actually, the way we calculate things, a Black male protester is equal to three-fifths of a White male protester, " the official said. “And Black women we don’t count at all. So on balance, the math tends to balance out.” 

“The French Cuban writer Anaïs Nin wrote in 1940 that ‘America is in even greater danger because of its cult of toughness, its hatred of sensitivity, and someday it may have to pay a price for this.’ ”

“This did not start with Trump. The biggest threat to White America was always the rage and violence of White America. And if the country doesn’t get a hold of itself, America’s democracy will indeed pay a heavy, heavy price. America will lose whatever remains of its soul.”


On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 15:01, Pete Seddon <[email protected]> wrote:


> https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bloodlines?src=hashtag_click
> 
> click on 'bloodlines'.











ReplyReply to allForward


----------



## D_W

(I doubt you'd fare well if we started comparing 1860s literature from England to use against pot-stirring editorials in your own papers. Claiming that most of the group is upset because they're really there for race-related reasons is pretty dumb, but it will generate clicks - again - the pro-wrestling narrative style gimmick for both ends of the media - don't shoot the middle, because people only return if they're angry. Besides, the only thing lost is truth and accuracy).


----------



## Trainee neophyte

So the dust has had a bit of time to settle, and the left/establishment positions seems to be that:

Trump is now completely insane (even more than before).
The right are violent, insane, led by a madman, and utterly unworthy of anything other than contempt, because they attacked the very core of America
Trump instigated the attack personally, with his speech.
The administration (ie Trump personally) removed all the police in order to allow the storming of the Capitol Building.
The election was free and fair, and there is no evidence, nor has there ever been any evidence, of a rigged election. See point 1. Any evidence to the contrary is trifling and irrelevant and couldn't have had any significant effect, therefore see point 1.

I'm sure there is more but that will do to be going on with. Has anyone on here actually seen the counter narratives? They are out there, but if you stick with the BBC or the Guardian you aren't going to see the other side of the story. As I mentioned several pages back, reality is no longer relevant - it's all about the narrative.

So, first up - evidence that the violence was perpetrated by BLM /Antifa rent-a-mob: FALSE FLAG CONFIRMED: . Is it true? I don't know, but it is interesting nonetheless. I also see that the internet is awash with "factchecked" refutations that Antifa or BLM were there - the lady do'st protest too much?

Next up - Trump called for the attack during his speech . Well, I tried reading through the transcript of his speech, looking for an explicit call to arms , but it was pretty turgid stuff so I gave up before I found anything. Perhaps you can do better (attention deficit disorder?): Donald Trump Speech "Save America" Rally Transcript January 6 - Rev

I did find this specific quote from later on:


> "I know your pain, I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election and everyone knows it especially the other side.
> 
> "But you have to go home now, we have to have peace, we have to have law and order, we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt*."*



I have no knowledge/opinion regarding who set the policing levels at the Capitol Building - perhaps someone else does. The real question is - who benefits most from a violent invasion of government? You could make arguments for either side, which means either side _might_ have been responsible, plus the conspiracy theory nutty idea that non-political others actually benefit most from political chaos (that would be the Color Revolution idea).

Now, the real crux of all this is whether or not the election was fraudulent. As I understand it there is plenty of evidence, but the various courts have refused to actually look at it. All the media say that there is no evidence, because the courts threw it all out, but the courts cleverly avoided any consideration of actual evidence, and refused the various claims on procedural grounds. Anyhoo, as they say in Canada, here is some "evidence", just in case you wanted to see what the the other lot have got their knickers in a twist about.

Election 2020 Was Rigged: The Evidence - Geller Report News








Tucker Carlson: Here's how the Democrats 'rigged' the 2020 election


Fox News host Tucker Carlson said the 2020 election was "rigged" to favor President-elect Joe Biden in plain sight.




www.washingtonexaminer.com




I won't post any more - lefties will ignore it because it is obviously right wing and therefore insane, and anyone who actually has an interest can rummage the internet on their own. My own position is that I would never trust an electronic voting machine, no matter how many people assured me it was honest and true. Paper votes or it never happened.

In conclusion, for anyone who's eyes haven't glazed over already; the right seem to think that the election was stolen, but more importantly that the checks and balances to protect democracy have failed to give them a voice. In other words, they are disenfranchised. The Second Amendment allows lots of guns for exactly this reason (according to all the right wingers, that is). If I was a democrat I would be wearing squeaky shoes these days. If I was an evil manipulator trying to cause maximum chaos and split the communities, I probably wouldn't have done much differently. 

It's almost as if someone truly wants different sections of Americans at each other's throats. Who would benefit from that?


----------



## Spectric

I think this shows just how un united the states have become, they are I believe struggling to find there new position in a changing world where sheer miltary power is no longer a solution. This is also reflected in Europe where the left and right are always playing tug of war.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> ........ If I was an evil manipulator trying to cause maximum chaos and split the communities, I probably wouldn't have done much differently.
> 
> It's almost as if someone truly wants different sections of Americans at each other's throats. Who would benefit from that?


Who else but the Trump family? And their enablers of course; supporters with power and money. 
Not the fringe Qanon nutters, hairy chaps with guns and confederate flags and the likes - they are political cannon fodder, possibly literal cannon fodder if things get worse.
I can't see any other likely contenders.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> It looks like a capitol police officer has also died, but how is not specified.



Smashed on the head multiple times with a fire extinguisher.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Smashed on the head multiple times with a fire extinguisher.



That's death penalty stuff here.


----------



## clogs

It's all a shame, the US and Europe are in a right mess plus 1/2 the world really......
mostly because one side or the other want to fill their pockets.....

also it's about time the good ol Beeb (BBC) was neutral.....time enough to get rid of it....me thinks.....
but god knows what'll be best to replace it.....I never watch the news anymore...it's mostley garbage.....

D-W, I'm sorry for your troubles ovr there but our's is only just under the surface.....
face ache and twitters dont help at all.....
Just glad I'm out of it.....

I know nothing of your new man in office but it would be good if he and our gov helped each other more....
free trade would be a good start.....lets just show the world what can be done now we are free
from the united Europe of Germany and France....


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Just as a historical note of fact, this isn't the only time the Capitol building has been 'occupied' by protestors in recent years. Back in 2018, protestors opposed to the appointment of Brett Kavanagh to the Supreme Court stormed and shut down the building.

FLASHBACK: Anti-Kavanaugh Protesters Banged On Doors Of Supreme Court, Occupied Capitol Building (trendingpolitics.com) 

(I don't recall quite so much media outrage about that one, certainly not among the UK media. Maybe that says something about the media.)


----------



## Trainee neophyte




----------



## gregmcateer

Trainee
Not left or right here, but by your argument that it was stoked by eg antifa, that means that all the others are idiots and jut followed the clever false protestor(s). Likewise, by the same logic, far right extremists actually tricked the BLM protestors into vandalism, rioting, etc back last year.
Additionally, assuming Fox News are to be trusted more, (or the same), as eg BBC, etc, and the elections were rigged/fraudulent, how come many of the protestors that were interviewed on Wed, (and many times since the election), stated with a straight face and indignation, that if Trump had won, it would have been fair? Surely it's either rigged or it isn't? That doesn't seem like something you can pick and choose depending if your guy won? And how come the 2016 election wasn't rigged?
Just a couple of thoughts.


----------



## D_W

clogs said:


> It's all a shame, the US and Europe are in a right mess plus 1/2 the world really......
> mostly because one side or the other want to fill their pockets.....
> 
> also it's about time the good ol Beeb (BBC) was neutral.....time enough to get rid of it....me thinks.....
> but god knows what'll be best to replace it.....I never watch the news anymore...it's mostley garbage.....
> 
> D-W, I'm sorry for your troubles ovr there but our's is only just under the surface.....
> face ache and twitters dont help at all.....
> Just glad I'm out of it.....
> 
> I know nothing of your new man in office but it would be good if he and our gov helped each other more....
> free trade would be a good start.....lets just show the world what can be done now we are free
> from the united Europe of Germany and France....



We'll all be alright. You're right about gov. folks actually trying to solve problems, but that's not what rewards them, I guess. 

I will admit I was happy when trump was elected because I didn't want to see hillary in office (not because I knew anything about Trump). I am happy to see biden coming into office, but wary here in the states of two branches of government (that do all of the legislating and executing) being in the same party. That's usually bad news, and leads to springback later because people always grow to dislike whoever is in office. 1994 was the rise of republicans, then after that, the rise of democrats, and back recently until really recently toward republicans and now back to democrats. After people see democrats for four years, they'll forget about what they don't like about republicans and vote them back in. 

It's really strange to me, but most of us vote against someone these days rather than for them. There aren't many things in life that turn out when when your objective is to avoid something rather than to accomplish something. 

I do think there's never been a better time to be alive than now, though, and that most of our perception of trouble has nothing to do with what's at our doorstep (covid aside, it's a one-off) but with how much information we're bombarded with and the fact that it's now narrative instead of more or less news data. Narrative is enticing and makes dopamine go for everyone, but the byproducts it leaves behind are far less good. The news story linked suggesting the real problem here is the rioters are all racists is the kind of thing that does nobody any favors. Ever build consensus with anyone by insulting them?

The times where people will now say nostaligcally that they had it better usually equate to simplified narratives and overlooking things:
* grow up in the 1910s, feel it was great? WWI was just around the corner
* the 20s? a very temporary time that build the foundation for the depression
* the 30s - nobody who lived in the depression other than a few of means wasn't deeply marked by it. It created a generation of elderly hoarders in the US
* the 40s? - WWII was pretty rough
* 50s and 60s? the era of expansion by borrowing began, race tensions, threat of nuclear war
* 70s? climate gloom and doom emerged, oil problems, economic malaise
* 80s? aids, economic trouble until the middle and then a market crash and horrid job market at the tail end (but lots of good music left behind, and some rotten, but that came from the 60s-80s in general, and back to the 50s if you like the chet atkins types)
* 1990s? hard to find a job in the first part and expansion in the second part based on ill advised borrowing and export of the base of the economy to the second and third worlds
* 2000s? crash again, two expensive wars that look to have temporary effect only, and the rise of social media

Times before the 1910s were a whole lot rougher in terms of raw effort just to survive and avoid economic ruin.


----------



## D_W

gregmcateer said:


> And how come the 2016 election wasn't rigged?



are you kidding? Do you not remember how long the investigation over "Russian election rigging" went on? It more or less lasted 3 years of this current 4 year term, with talk of impeachment about similar to the talk of "2020 election fraud". 

There was no substance to the whole russian rigging thing, just as there is none to the election rigging. 

let's be a little bit more objective - just as the mention above of breaching the capitol during the kavanaugh hearings. 

It's not always convenient to just state everything and say "I don't know, I can see how most of the people could be misled to thinking what they do on both sides and it's a shame". 

Most people here regard BBC as being like another PBS. PBS is regarded as having slightly liberal biased news, but reliable compared to any of the larger networks. See my narrative comment above regarding the choice of the networks, anyway.


----------



## billw

I do actually read/watch the right-wing views as well as BBC, WaPo, NYT, but I do get my info from mostly MSM. I have to say they both do live in completely alternative factual universes. Which do I believe? Well there's been plenty of Republicans in Georgia going blue in the face trying to explain that there's no identified fraud, certainly not on the scale pushed by the right. Trump just keeps trotting out the same theories - still no actual evidence two months later, it's "around the corner, wait for the big reveal". It's hard not to sceptical.

I don't understand the feeling of being disenfranchised, it's called losing. More people voted for the other guy, they're getting their voices heard. However 50% of the Senate is Republican and 48/49%-ish in the House is too, and 2/3rds of the Supreme Court - so what I see is a lot of conservative voices that have a place in the democratic system. Also - America doesn't like losers. Said it before on here I think, part of national psyche.

The conspiracy theory angle, which does seem to stem almost entirely from the right - I can't figure it out but I think Americans have a tendency to try and rationalise everything - look at the sheer volume of statistics they have in sport to try and explain why a team scored or didn't score, or should have lost but didn't and etc etc. 

Oh and yesterday I went and had a look at thedonald.win forum. It's.... interesting.


----------



## Jacob

billw said:


> ...
> The conspiracy theory angle, which does seem to stem almost entirely from the right - I can't figure it out .....


I don't believe the conspiracy theories. It may sometimes seem like a cunning plot but it's more that when things are going s**t shaped certain factions suddenly find a common purpose or opportunity, as rats do when leaving a sinking ship, or vultures and hyenas around a wounded animal.


----------



## billw

Jacob said:


> I don't believe the conspiracy theories. It may sometimes seem like a cunning plot but it's more that when things are going s**t shaped certain factions suddenly find a common purpose or opportunity, as rats do when leaving a sinking ship, or vultures and hyenas around a wounded animal.



Well, no I don't believe them either since they're generally debunked with what I would accept as plausible explanations. The problem is that those who have invested in theories have a much more difficult time unwinding themselves from it - the fear of having to admit they were wrong etc. The QAnon thing for example - if Trump loses office without exposing a cannibalistic, satanic, child molesting cabal then the whole thing falls apart instantly. The day he loses office the internet will be full of people rationalising that he's still going to do it but it was never meant to be whilst he was in office, that was just giving him time to collect the evidence etc etc.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I do actually read/watch the right-wing views as well as BBC, WaPo, NYT, but I do get my info from mostly MSM. I have to say they both do live in completely alternative factual universes. Which do I believe? Well there's been plenty of Republicans in Georgia going blue in the face trying to explain that there's no identified fraud, certainly not on the scale pushed by the right. Trump just keeps trotting out the same theories - still no actual evidence two months later, it's "around the corner, wait for the big reveal". It's hard not to sceptical.
> 
> I don't understand the feeling of being disenfranchised, it's called losing. More people voted for the other guy, they're getting their voices heard. However 50% of the Senate is Republican and 48/49%-ish in the House is too, and 2/3rds of the Supreme Court - so what I see is a lot of conservative voices that have a place in the democratic system. Also - America doesn't like losers. Said it before on here I think, part of national psyche.
> 
> The conspiracy theory angle, which does seem to stem almost entirely from the right - I can't figure it out but I think Americans have a tendency to try and rationalise everything - look at the sheer volume of statistics they have in sport to try and explain why a team scored or didn't score, or should have lost but didn't and etc etc.
> 
> Oh and yesterday I went and had a look at thedonald.win forum. It's.... interesting.



as I said, the election fraud and the whole "trump was put in office by the russians" thing are about equal. The former is new, but the latter kept people glued to cable news for 3 years. My parents are split party. My mother watch MSNBC much of her waking time. My father watches sports most of his waking time, but does watch fox news fairly often. When we visit there, I've requested having the TVs turned off, but it doesn't work, so we stay in a hotel. Both of the networks are toxic. here's how you can see people getting worked - turn all of it off for a month or four, read about professional wrestling writing (building an angle, getting people angry - because that's what sells tickets and pay per views), and then go back and watch the news here other than PBS. 

You will be convinced that since all of the pro wrestling territories have merged here that all of the writers have gone to the news networks. The russian election thing sent my mother into depression - she believed so much in it that she couldn't stop watching. My dad voted for trump (I have only voted recently to cancel out my wife's vote when I think both candidates deserve a no vote, but didn't vote in the last election - I think abstention sends its own message), my mother obviously voted against him. They've been living in separate rooms for four years. My dad believes the stuff on fox but it doesn't affect him day to day. You can't have a conversation with my mother without her getting into politics and the exit of trump finally should bring one thing - I won't have to hear what the next guaranteed impeachment date will be. 

My dad does believe there was widespread fraud, but when I press him on it, he also believes biden won the election but that the fraud is something that should be investigated. I usually float a fart in church by saying "i think they should audit it and see which way the fraud goes net of it on both sides. It may eliminate some in the future and make people recognize that it exists in small amounts on both sides". That ends the discussion. 

I saw (can't remember her name now - popular host on MSNBC....maddow) with my mother and said "OK, i've had some troughs in life and understand thinking traps. There is zero chance that this host doesn't have issues with depression and anxiety. The way she's talking, i understand it's part gimmick, but it literally hits every point on the list of thinking traps. I looked it up, found out that she's had bouts of depression so bad that she loses her sense of smell and told my mother that it probably wasn't a good idea to listen to her. I feel for people who have depression - I had a drug reaction once in the past to a migraine medication that was instant depression - it's like being on a different planet, which is where I learned the thinking trap stuff. It's, in my opinion, morally wrong to trade on it, though. My mother kicked me out of the room. hah! When both news channels were on in the house, we took the kids back to the hotel and went in the pool.


----------



## Droogs

All of this could have been avoided if they just had a communications act that demands only factually correct information is broadcast and any station who peddle BS loses its licence and the owners are charged with sedition and get 20 years in the nick - no time off


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Well, no I don't believe them either since they're generally debunked with what I would accept as plausible explanations. The problem is that those who have invested in theories have a much more difficult time unwinding themselves from it - the fear of having to admit they were wrong etc. The QAnon thing for example - if Trump loses office without exposing a cannibalistic, satanic, child molesting cabal then the whole thing falls apart instantly. The day he loses office the internet will be full of people rationalising that he's still going to do it but it was never meant to be whilst he was in office, that was just giving him time to collect the evidence etc etc.



The day the media decides it's no longer a story, we'll stop hearing about it. Like the investigation into russian election meddling or the kavanaugh fascination, it can't come too soon. I don't know what qanon is, and someone used the term "kracken" to me the other day (sounds like a video game character or something to do with processing nuts. "I went to the store today and got the kracken. We're making walnut cookies tomorrow and it should really speed it up"..

..the chance that whatever is next with the media being good, more fact, less narrative is zero - so I look forward to being uninformed as above. I know what BLM is because they requested we not work in the office the day BLM rallies were going on downtown (but, as I mentioned, I walked through them - very uneventful and I would've gladly shaken the hands of anyone in the rally - we're people. I patted a few on the back as I walked by. I think it's more productive even though a guy in a dress coat with a briefcase looks out of place walking through.) Having gone through the group from end to end, I wished they'd just livestream it on the news for a while - what will people think if they see the actual event and nothing happens?


----------



## D_W

Droogs said:


> All of this could have been avoided if they just had a communications act that demands only factually correct information is broadcast and any station who peddle BS loses its licence and the owners are charged with sedition and get 20 years in the nick - no time off



Sounds very russian. What happens when you report a segment of the facts that leads people to a different conclusion than the whole story? What happens when you make an honest mistake?

A better conclusion would be an independent fact checker providing details, and a rating for news shows, channels and personalities. I would imagine the rating/fact checkers would be overridden with bias fairly quickly, though, because that would be more profitable. They'd soon be aiming for clicks and it goes back to pro wrestling psychology.


----------



## billw

@D_W the biggest problem seems to be the conditioning of each side to simply unilaterally reject the other side's arguments, i.e. the polarisation. I feel sorry for Biden's government in that I suspect Harris is going to be casting decisive votes almost every week because the respective parties will simply vote down hard party lines, even though I'm sure there's conversation Democrats and liberal Republicans on SOME issues. Maybe the two independents who caucus with the Dems realise they now hold a lot of sway. They can demand very progressive agendas on the principle that if they're not progressive enough they can side with the Reps. I suspect Bernie is highly unlikely to do that but you never know.

At some point there does need to be a very adult conversation about the future of the USA though, the facts and statistics suggest that it really is becoming two countries. I've said at university that I can see another US civil war in my lifetime, purely on cultural ideology. 

On that note, maybe you could explain to me what the point of North Dakota is? They get two senators but erm...what does the state do? Why is it separate from South Dakota? I couldn't even tell you what the capital city is and I'm generally good at knowing those.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> Sounds very russian. What happens when you report a segment of the facts that leads people to a different conclusion than the whole story? What happens when you make an honest mistake?
> 
> A better conclusion would be an independent fact checker providing details, and a rating for news shows, channels and personalities. I would imagine the rating/fact checkers would be overridden with bias fairly quickly, though, because that would be more profitable. They'd soon be aiming for clicks and it goes back to pro wrestling psychology.



At this point can I say I love the wresting analogies as I grew up watching the WWF over here despite it was on for one hour a week on ITV at 2am on a Monday morning.


----------



## Blackswanwood




----------



## billw

Trump doing his best to help the nation move forward by not attending Biden's inauguration


----------



## Awac

Droogs said:


> All of this could have been avoided if they just had a communications act that demands only factually correct information is broadcast and any station who peddle BS loses its licence and the owners are charged with sedition and get 20 years in the nick - no time off



First you have to have a government that wants free speech...









Schools in England told not to use material from anti-capitalist groups


Idea categorised as ‘extreme political stance’ equivalent to endorsing illegal activity




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Droogs

D_W said:


> Sounds very russian. What happens when you report a segment of the facts that leads people to a different conclusion than the whole story? What happens when you make an honest mistake?
> 
> A better conclusion would be an independent fact checker providing details, and a rating for news shows, channels and personalities. I would imagine the rating/fact checkers would be overridden with bias fairly quickly, though, because that would be more profitable. They'd soon be aiming for clicks and it goes back to pro wrestling psychology.


No as most don't bother with anything after the headlines. The fact that Fox rescind their BS a few days after they broadcast makes no difference it has already had the intended effect. So best to get them to F off before they are able to cause the death of more people.. And it is all sides it should apply to


----------



## selectortone

D_W said:


> as I said, the election fraud and the whole "trump was put in office by the russians" thing are about equal.



I would put more credence in the latter. There are massive, and very sophisticated operations, with huge buildings full of people, in Russia (and China, Iran and a dozen other places) logged into social media 24x7 peddling fake news in the form of conspiracy theories. Their purpose is to polarize the American population, foment hate and destabilise western democracy. On recent evidence, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job.

We are sleepwalking into an apocalypse.


----------



## John Brown

For someone who claims to be "outta here on this thread", you're still doing a lotta typing, D_W.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

selectortone said:


> I would put more credence in the latter. There are massive, and very sophisticated operations, with huge buildings full of people, in Russia (and China, Iran and a dozen other places) logged into social media 24x7 peddling fake news in the form of conspiracy theories. Their purpose is to polarize the American population, foment hate and destabilise western democracy. On recent evidence, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job.
> 
> We are sleepwalking into an apocalypse.


You appear to have swallowed the party line in a big way. Have you ever heard of 77 Brigade? It's a British army internet assault unit, specifically designed to keep us all safe from democracy. From wikipedia:


> The Brigade uses social media such as Twitter and Facebook as well as psyop techniques to influence populations and behaviour. David Miller, a professor of political sociology at the University of Bristol who studies British government propaganda and public relations, said that it is "involved in manipulation of the media including using fake online profiles".[25][26][27]



That's just one of many UK based government run departments who have a specific remit to create fake news, change opinion and generally muddy the waters. Its not just government, because we have moved to a facist private/public partnership style of unelected, unaccountable systems of NGOs and people like Integrity Initiative.The USA has way more of the same. Most western nations also play the game, with the 5 eyes nations being top of the heap. Then, as you say, you have the nation's who suffer at the hands of these groups using countermeasures. Sometimes I wonder how many accounts on the internet are real - take out all the bots, and the government propaganda merchants, and the foreign intelligence agencies, and it is entirely possible that there is no real discourse on the internet at all. It's all just propagandists trying to trick each other.

Here's how the British government spends taxpayer money abroad: REVEALED: The British government’s covert propaganda campaign in Syria

What's to stop foreign governments doing the same in the UK? Or the USA, for that matter...


----------



## gregmcateer

Anyone got any wooden things to show us? Or metal, if that's your thang - no bias here, friends


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Have you ever heard of 77 Brigade? It's a British army internet assault unit, specifically designed to keep us all safe from democracy



Is that a UFO flying past.

77th brigade  

What is really happening is the deep state, it's all a communist plot.

Personally I think Bill Gates is involved.


----------



## D_W

John Brown said:


> For someone who claims to be "outta here on this thread", you're still doing a lotta typing, D_W.



It's hard to resist when you see weird stuff that doesn't match reality here, or when something is really one-sided (the implication that this is the first fixed election after we spent years listening to endless drivel about russian interference....which turned out to be facebook ads). 

But the novelty is wearing off, and I'll leave you guys to queen/soccer/pub soon!!


----------



## mikej460




----------



## Fitzroy

Trainee neophyte said:


> You appear to have swallowed the party line in a big way. Have you ever heard of 77 Brigade? It's a British army internet assault unit, specifically designed to keep us all safe from democracy. From wikipedia:
> 
> That's just one of many UK based government run departments who have a specific remit to create fake news, change opinion and generally muddy the waters. Its not just government, because we have moved to a facist private/public partnership style of unelected, unaccountable systems of NGOs and people like Integrity Initiative.The USA has way more of the same. Most western nations also play the game, with the 5 eyes nations being top of the heap. Then, as you say, you have the nation's who suffer at the hands of these groups using countermeasures. Sometimes I wonder how many accounts on the internet are real - take out all the bots, and the government propaganda merchants, and the foreign intelligence agencies, and it is entirely possible that there is no real discourse on the internet at all. It's all just propagandists trying to trick each other.
> 
> Here's how the British government spends taxpayer money abroad: REVEALED: The British government’s covert propaganda campaign in Syria
> 
> What's to stop foreign governments doing the same in the UK? Or the USA, for that matter...



Love the II claimed funding of c. 500k for a year. That’s about 5 peoples wages. Not gonna make a blip of difference on the internet, you’d need to be spending 10s of millions and have hundreds of people working this stuff.


----------



## Bodone

gregmcateer said:


> Anyone got any wooden things to show us? Or metal, if that's your thang - no bias here, friends



What’s this ‘metal’ thing you speak of?


----------



## Jacob

gregmcateer said:


> Anyone got any wooden things to show us? Or metal, if that's your thang - no bias here, friends


Would you like me to show how to sharpen a scrub plane blade the easy way?


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> There was no substance to the whole russian rigging thing, just as there is none to the election rigging.



Have you read the (bipartisan) Senate Intelligence Committee Report?


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> View attachment 100557



That's the usefulidiot crowd. Now do the people with pistols, plasticuffs, pipe bombs, rifles.


----------



## Jake

billw said:


> I suspect Harris is going to be casting decisive votes almost every week because the respective parties will simply vote down hard party lines



I think that is right in the short term, but there is a good chance that the US will no longer be a two party country. GOP is going to be torn between the decent conservative democrats and the proto-fascist white supremacy wing trump has attached to it, those two are really not compatible.


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> Snip putinist shilling


----------



## doctor Bob

DW, I'd just like to thank you for your posts, very informative.


----------



## billw

Jake said:


> I think that is right in the short term, but there is a good chance that the US will no longer be a two party country. GOP is going to be torn between the decent conservative democrats and the proto-fascist white supremacy wing trump has attached to it, those two are really not compatible.



I would agree that the possibility of the GOP splitting is quite possible, which will also guarantee neither of them ever gets into power again.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> But the novelty is wearing off, and I'll leave you guys to queen/soccer/pub soon!!



"Football"


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I would agree that the possibility of the GOP splitting is quite possible, which will also guarantee neither of them ever gets into power again.



It'll never happen solely for that reason. If you could split and retain power, the progressive and centrist democrats (who hate each other) would split.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> It'll never happen solely for that reason. If you could split and retain power, the progressive and centrist democrats (who hate each other) would split.



Which might also happen I suppose, if the GOP fractured it might embolden the progressive left. to gamble. The two party system does seem to be struggling to cope with the current demographic.


----------



## Jameshow

GOP ???????

Cheers James


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Have you read the (bipartisan) Senate Intelligence Committee Report?



Interference in the election, not enough to affect the outcome. Sort of like the typical voter fraud in each election. 

The biggest finding was that the President obstructed the investigation, but the obstruction was of something that didn't occur materially. 

I can't get too worked up about someone obstructing an investigation when the investigation is covering something that didn't occur. The fake outrage by the senate afterwards about obstruction of justice was kind of dumb. If there's obstruction of something found to be substantive later, that's a much bigger problem. 

Same reason I can't get worked up when someone says they've found 2000 fraudulent votes or uncounted votes in an entire state. Who cares?

As far as election meddling, I recall probably approaching a decade ago now where the Obama administration attempted to interfere in the russian elections and the russians were pointing fingers over it. It blew over because it obviously had no effect. 

Do you think there has been an election in the last 50 years where the US hasn't done something to manipulate soviet or russian elections, or the converse? It's daily business. Would you like to contend the English never get involved in any of this kind of meddling, either? It's part of superpowers screwing with each other.


----------



## billw

Jameshow said:


> GOP ???????
> 
> Cheers James



Grand Old Party = Republicans


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Which might also happen I suppose, if the GOP fractured it might embolden the progressive left. to gamble. The two party system does seem to be struggling to cope with the current demographic.



I just can't see it - to divide influence and dilute ability to collect money or affect change (which allows you to collect more money). I can't see either party doing it - the US just isn't set up to have that happen any time soon because it would guarantee the other side winning. If the GOP split, it may cause a small minority of far left progressives to leave just because they could afford to, but a similar split wouldn't occur in the democratic party. 

I don't personally want to see either of them having unchecked legislative ability - they both act like morons when they're in charge of both parts of congress and the executive branch, and they get really intellectually dishonest (more even than normal).


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> Do you think there has been an election in the last 50 years where the US hasn't done something to manipulate soviet or russian elections, or the converse? It's daily business. Would you like to contend the English never get involved in any of this kind of meddling, either? It's part of superpowers screwing with each other.



Yup, this is very true. There's no way that nations don't interfere with elections when it's in their interests. I certainly don't think the UK is innocent of doing it as much as the Russians and Chinese are.


----------



## Jameshow

billw said:


> Grand Old Party = Republicans



Thanks.

I think that the far right of the republicans will be in the wilderness for a long time to come.

Much like the far left post Corbyn here in the UK.

The rest if us can get on with the compormises of politics / life and the joy of woodwork!!

Cheers James


----------



## selectortone

Trainee neophyte said:


> You appear to have swallowed the party line in a big way. Have you ever heard of 77 Brigade? It's a British army internet assault unit, specifically designed to keep us all safe from democracy. From wikipedia:
> 
> That's just one of many UK based government run departments who have a specific remit to create fake news, change opinion and generally muddy the waters. Its not just government, because we have moved to a facist private/public partnership style of unelected, unaccountable systems of NGOs and people like Integrity Initiative.The USA has way more of the same. Most western nations also play the game, with the 5 eyes nations being top of the heap. Then, as you say, you have the nation's who suffer at the hands of these groups using countermeasures. Sometimes I wonder how many accounts on the internet are real - take out all the bots, and the government propaganda merchants, and the foreign intelligence agencies, and it is entirely possible that there is no real discourse on the internet at all. It's all just propagandists trying to trick each other.
> 
> Here's how the British government spends taxpayer money abroad: REVEALED: The British government’s covert propaganda campaign in Syria
> 
> What's to stop foreign governments doing the same in the UK? Or the USA, for that matter...


5 blokes in a shed? Is Matt Hancock in charge


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Yup, this is very true. There's no way that nations don't interfere with elections when it's in their interests. I certainly don't think the UK is innocent of doing it as much as the Russians and Chinese are.



Wikipedia has a nice selection of summaries, but there's not much mention of the UK (except that we meddled in brexit and another recent election). I think if you want to have a place to put your own election meddling, you'll have to make your own English version of Wikipedia!!

I remember Obama publicly saying that we would influence the russian elections or something along those lines (more softly worded) when we thought medvedev had a better chance than more recent elections, and putin blew his stack over it. 

The sentiment at the time in the news was that it's kind of an acceptable thing because Putin is more or less an evil dictator with a rigged system in Russia. Doesn't even show up on wikipedia as rising to meddling (thanks to priorities in google, I can't find it), but that occurred to me when people were supposedly surprised that the Russians would buy ads on facebook that were untrue, or deceptive to meddle in the elections. I thought at the time (in 2016), why wouldn't Russia do that when we were publicly saying it'd be in everyone's best interest to have putin voted out?


----------



## Jake

This is a serious statement from a dry and cautious bipartisan committee


----------



## Jake

I could carry on for a long time ad nauseum.

report_volume5.pdf (senate.gov)


----------



## NormanB

While the Brits at least were genuinely shocked to see the antics surrounding the storming of Congress, I was more surprised that there were only 4 deaths. Regrettable that there were any deaths at all of course but in a country renowned for an armed whacko on almost every street corner I would have expected Congress to look like the remnants of Custer’s last stand the next morning.

I read an interesting statistic the other day - (yes I know 69.32% of statistics are just made up) During the panic buying spree in the first wave of COVID shut downs - In the USA Firearms and ammunition sales rose by something in the order of 700% while the UK ran out of toilet rolls and saw a 400% increase in the sale of croquet mallets.


----------



## Droogs

yeah but the previous year 'arrods 'as only sold 3 mallets init


----------



## kwigly

I'm looking at the US events from afar, as a foreigner, but it seems to me that there will be continued protests and escalating trouble unless there is a detailed and transparent investigation of the claims of election fraud, especially regarding possible electronic vote switching in the swing states. There seems to be more evidence of manipulation than was ever presented in the previous election with "Russian Interference" . There are tales of strange happenings; of inexplicable simultaneous halting of vote counting in all 5 swing states with subsequent vote tabulation changing the lead from Trump to Biden; The only states where Biden got more votes than Obama ever got were in those same swing states; analysis of reported vote totals in real time show time periods of negative candidate vote totals in some time segments, and/or unlikely district results where 90% of votes go to Biden; signed affadavits admitting that vote counting software was tampered with; etc
When the people asking questions are just labeled as delusional and have their facebook/twitter/www accounts blocked/banned without addressing the possibility of some grain of truth in their concerns, and the courts refuse to hear any arguments, it increases the appearance of a whitewash or coverup of election fraud. So I can totally understand why a section of US society thinks its their patriotic duty to protest against this apparent (to them) violation of a free and fair democratic vote.
If it is claimed that the voting machine results and tabulations have been changed using computer algorithms, and no rigorous and transparent check is is made to disprove that this has happened or is possible, then the whole concept of a democratic vote is in question. 
Thankfully they still use paper votes where I am, and these can be re-counted if there's questions, so that people who listen to too many conspiracy theories can have their worries calmed.


----------



## Blackswanwood

It’s pretty amazing imho a country such as the US has not found a way to vote and subsequently count them so as to avoid all of this hullabaloo.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

I'm glad to see that the fact checkers turned up to put everyone straight on what the narrative should be. @RobinBHM are you suggesting 77 Brigade doesn't exist, or doesn't wage internet war? Which is it? Am I a tinfoil - hat wearing naive silly person for believing in something that doesn't even exist?









77th Brigade (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org





They even have their own website, ffs! "77th Brigade - Influence and Outreach"








77th Brigade


77th Brigade is a combined Regular Army and Army Reserve unit. The Reserve element draws specialists on a nationwide basis. This new Brigade aims to challenge the difficulties of modern warfare using non-lethal engagement and legitimate non-military levers as a means to adapt behaviours of the...




www.army.mod.uk


----------



## Jacob

kwigly said:


> I'm looking at the US events from afar, as a foreigner, but it seems to me that there will be continued protests and escalating trouble unless there is a detailed and transparent investigation of the claims of election fraud, especially regarding possible electronic vote switching in the swing states. There seems to be more evidence of manipulation than was ever presented in the previous election with "Russian Interference" . There are tales of strange happenings; of inexplicable simultaneous halting of vote counting in all 5 swing states with subsequent vote tabulation changing the lead from Trump to Biden; The only states where Biden got more votes than Obama ever got were in those same swing states; analysis of reported vote totals in real time show time periods of negative candidate vote totals in some time segments, and/or unlikely district results where 90% of votes go to Biden; signed affadavits admitting that vote counting software was tampered with; etc
> When the people asking questions are just labeled as delusional and have their facebook/twitter/www accounts blocked/banned without addressing the possibility of some grain of truth in their concerns, and the courts refuse to hear any arguments, it increases the appearance of a whitewash or coverup of election fraud. So I can totally understand why a section of US society thinks its their patriotic duty to protest against this apparent (to them) violation of a free and fair democratic vote.
> If it is claimed that the voting machine results and tabulations have been changed using computer algorithms, and no rigorous and transparent check is is made to disprove that this has happened or is possible, then the whole concept of a democratic vote is in question.
> Thankfully they still use paper votes where I am, and these can be re-counted if there's questions, so that people who listen to too many conspiracy theories can have their worries calmed.


There _has_ been investigation of the complaints, including recounts. The Trump side have brought forward no evidence and non has been found, beyond marginal error. Trump himself was recorded on the phone trying to get someone to fix the vote. There have been investigations all over the place involving law processes and thousands of man hours.


----------



## gregmcateer

Interesting facts and views shared here. I love that we can all discuss, diverge, agree, disagree...
Also interesting that all of us, (here and elsewhere), use sources as per our view. For example, there have been 
big fans of the BBC and other UK channels, (and to less extent US channels, obvs as we are predominantly in UK),
Non committal watchers of the BBC and
Huge anti, "defund the BBC'.
I find it interesting that the last group tend to quote reliable internet sources, yet disregard unreliable BBC reporters, who put their names and faces to everything and are obliged to at least follow journalistic scrutiny. 
I genuinely don't think UK tv channels are politically affiliated, but it may seem so when they are scrutinising the govt of the day. We just happen to have a long time with a Conservative govt. I seem to remember the Left complaining of the right wing BBC during the Blair govt days. 
Seems to indicate they are annoying everyone, depending on their views - probably getting the balance ?


----------



## billw

gregmcateer said:


> Seems to indicate they are annoying everyone, depending on their views - probably getting the balance ?



My mum's biggest gripe with the BBC news is that they interview people who are either BAME, "common" or "stupid". She thinks only well educated white people should be consulted for an opinion. So yes, the BBC can't possible please everyone.

That's not to say they don't hold bias - Laura Kuenssberg seems to have a gripe with the government because her questioning sometimes goes beyond being firm into the realms of aggressive, although in all fairness that's just how I read her manner, maybe others won't see it that way (objectively I mean, not people who sit there thinking "yeah stuff it to those Tory bar stewards Laura").

However bias isn't of the BBC itself, it's held by the individual presenters.


----------



## Jacob

Channel 4 news my favourite, they seem to ask the right questions.




__





channel 4 news - Google Search






www.google.com


----------



## MIGNAL

Jacob said:


> There _has_ been investigation of the complaints, including recounts. The Trump side have brought forward no evidence and non has been found, beyond marginal error. Trump himself was recorded on the phone trying to get someone to fix the vote. There have been investigations all over the place involving law processes and thousands of man hours.



They did find voter fraud. It was a republican voter in his 70's who tried to vote as his dead mother! Silly old tw*t. 
There's voter fraud in every election. Happens here all the time. Happens everywhere. It's a very, very, very tiny percentage of the result. It ain't gonna change any result. . . . unless it happens to be Russia or Belarus or some other tinpot country. Trump wanted to be just like them.


----------



## billw

MIGNAL said:


> They did find voter fraud. It was a republican voter in his 70's who tried to vote as his dead mother! Silly old tw*t.
> There's voter fraud in every election. Happens here all the time. Happens everywhere. It's a very, very, very tiny percentage of the result. It ain't gonna change any result. . . . unless it happens to be Russia or Belarus or some other tinpot country. Trump wanted to be just like them.



His tendencies to pander to autocrats and say how wonderful it was that their media always supported them (yes... I wonder why they do that lol) etc et clearly showed the direction he wanted to go in.

Interestingly, if the GOP does become more radicalised, then it is going to simply decrease its chances of ever getting back into power again. They've always loved voter suppression and gerrymandering as ways of maintaining minority power but it's going to get a lot more difficult - they've only won the majority public vote once in 8 elections already?

If the Democrats make DC a full state, then that's another two almost guaranteed blue seats in Congress. 

The danger will be that an increasingly desperate minority will become even more radicalised and stressed. The conspiracy theories will run riot (great piece in National Geographic today about the reasons why people cling to these theories - well worth a few minutes of your time) and that's got the potential to trigger a full break down in society. 

I note that Twitter finally banned Trump forever. Problem is that the conservatives will now feel even more censored and aggrieved with a resultant proliferation of right-wing-only sites, becoming dangerous echo chambers. Equally, MSM will become increasingly liberal making them feel as if there's no threat any more. 

Anyway, I'm off to enjoy some screwing. With a screwdriver by the way, before you ask.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

There was some vote fraud, and (I think) fifteen court cases were prepared. The courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to hear fourteen of them, so whatever evidence there may have been wasn't legally tested. 

That may be either the Courts taking a pragmatic decision not to become embroiled in politics (or deciding that it might be a good idea not to lift lids from cans of worms), or abrogating their constitutional duty, depending on your point of view.

Concern was expressed from a number of quarters long before the election that some voting arrangements might be vulnerable to attempts at fraud, but nothing was done to tighten up procedures. If you know systems might be faulty, don't be surprised if faults happen. (We know from UK experience that postal voting can have it's problems, for example, and in the UK measures have been taken to try to reduce or eliminate fraudulent postal voting.)

The whole thing is moot, now, anyway. Biden will be president from 20th January, whatever the perceived rights and wrongs. We'll all just have to wait and see how that pans out over the next four years.


----------



## Droogs

billw said:


> My mum's biggest gripe with the BBC news is that they interview people who are either BAME, "common" or "stupid". She thinks only well educated white people should be consulted for an opinion. So yes, the BBC can't possible please everyone.
> 
> That's not to say they don't hold bias - Laura Kuenssberg seems to have a gripe with the government because her questioning sometimes goes beyond being firm into the realms of aggressive, although in all fairness that's just how I read her manner, maybe others won't see it that way (objectively I mean, not people who sit there thinking "yeah stuff it to those Tory bar stewards Laura").
> 
> However bias isn't of the BBC itself, it's held by the individual presenters.


Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory

strange how views differ on the other side of the border.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie said:


> There was some vote fraud, and (I think) fifteen court cases were prepared. The courts, including the Supreme Court, declined to hear fourteen of them, so whatever evidence there may have been wasn't legally tested



There were over fifty - all of them were lost - and none of the lawyers who brought them were prepared to actually stand up and say in court there was fraud (where they would have faced consequences if they had lied to a court rather than the public).


----------



## Phil Pascoe

In view of the history of postal voting fraud and of university students openly being made aware of the fact (encouraged) they could vote twice, maybe we do not occupy the high ground.


----------



## NormanB

Droogs said:


> Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory
> 
> strange how views differ on the other side of the border.


That’s an enlightening perspective.
There is one thing for sure that while we can blame politicians at every turn of this unfolding pandemic (btw that approach achieves nowt). It has exposed to full gaze the completely inadequate (and rather stupid) journalist who dominate our airwaves. Many of the questions they ask politicians are just so inept and crass that it makes you cringe ( even from those I thought were credible journos in the past)I am under warning from SWMBO to stop shouting at the TV.


----------



## D_W

Phil Pascoe said:


> In view of the history of postal voting fraud and of university students openly being made aware of the fact (encouraged) they could vote twice, maybe we do not occupy the high ground.



This is more likely here, too, but quite often snowbirds who go to a winter home and get an absentee ballot and vote in their state of residence. Democrats in Chicago were fairly famous for pulling voting cards for people who didn't show up to supplement the vote, but I'd guess they were looking to get local results (Chicago was a big mob city) more than national. I haven't heard of any of the systemic stuff in my lifetime, but to have the odd person who lives in two states say they voted twice isn't unheard of. One would guess those types balance each other out party wise.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake said:


> There were over fifty - all of them were lost - and none of the lawyers who brought them were prepared to actually stand up and say in court there was fraud (where they would have faced consequences if they had lied to a court rather than the public).


That's not quite correct. The Courts did decline to hear some cases, and there was some video evidence and personal testimony. Whether that would have amounted to enough to change the results of State ballots is not known, and probably now never will be. Doesn't matter now, anyway.

It always seemed to me to be something of a 'shouting and arm waving' exercise, anyway. I very much doubt there has ever been an American presidential election without some fraud, despite which America, in general, seems to survive and thrive.


----------



## Jacob

Droogs said:


> Up here in the land of her birth, most people I know regard LK as working for the Boris Broadcasting Corporation and before that was seen as being TMs gob. she is view by most in scotland as a Tory sicophantic stooge. during the election, during discussions about who the jurnos would vote for nearly all said she'd vote tory
> 
> strange how views differ on the other side of the border.


It's a widely held view south of the border too!
Basically a very "establishment" figure, dyed in the wool, not her fault - she didn't choose her background poor thing - she's just a bit short of the necessary to be able to think herself out of it, which isn't good for a supposedly objective journalist
Just been reading Robert Fisk "The Great War for Civilisation" for balance!


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Trainee neophyte said:


> .......
> It's almost as if someone truly wants different sections of Americans at each other's throats. Who would benefit from that?


*Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin* ?
*Xi Jinping* ?
*Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei* ?
*Kim Jong-Un* ?
.......


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie said:


> That's not quite correct. The Courts did decline to hear some cases,



They declined to hear them in the sense of finding that the case was inarguable, legally and evidentially incoherent. It is called striking out a hopeless case which is so hopeless it is just a waste of the court's time. What I said was precisely correct, although the lawyers submitted (rubbish contrived) evidence, none of them was actually willing to say in front of a judge that the evidence they had to support their case demonstrated fraud.



> and there was some video evidence and personal testimony. Whether that would have amounted to enough to change the results of State ballots is not known, and probably now never will be.



See above, the cases were so hopeless they were struck out. That's the most epic way to fail in a law suit. It really is quite difficult to achieve not getting over the hurdle of having an arguable case. Lawyers have been and will be referred for professional conduct sanctions for bringing them. One of the bases for that is they submitted doctored video as evidence. The rest of the evidence was a complete joke. Many of the cases were heard (and dismissed) by republican judges (including the Supreme Court case you mentioned), and defended by republican state officials.

It was a propaganda campaign not a legal campaign. Seems to have fooled you.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake said:


> It was a propaganda campaign not a legal campaign. Seems to have fooled you.



That is rude and un-called for. I have not disputed the results of the election, unlike those bringing legal cases.


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie said:


> That is rude and un-called for. I have not disputed the results of the election, unlike those bringing legal cases.



You were trying to say there was evidence which the courts refused to look at, when there was no real evidence and that is why the cases failed. 

It worked, they pulled the wool over your eyes. That's what they set out to do. Sorry, it wasn't intended to be rude, just factual.


----------



## thetyreman




----------



## Blackswanwood




----------



## Ring

President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.


----------



## billw

Ring said:


> President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.


Not just you, also the view of a lot of unhinged people too.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake said:


> You were trying to say there was evidence which the courts refused to look at, when there was no real evidence and that is why the cases failed.
> 
> It worked, they pulled the wool over your eyes. That's what they set out to do. Sorry, it wasn't intended to be rude, just factual.


No wool pulled over my eyes. At no point have I suggested "the election was stolen" or any other of the various slogans and tropes trotted out.

There was evidence of fraud. There's always fraud. (There is in UK elections, too - hence the need to re-arrange postal voting provision a few years ago, and as Phil Pascoe pointed out, students able to vote twice and even being encouraged to do so by some people.) Had you actually bothered to read my comments, I said that it probably didn't amount to enough to affect the outcome, and that the whole legal challenge thing seemed to me to be more about shouting and arm-waving.

I repeat - saying that I was fooled was wrong, rude and uncalled for.


----------



## Noel

Ring said:


> President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.



What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?


----------



## Jake

Cheshirechappie said:


> I repeat - saying that I was fooled was wrong, rude and uncalled for.



You can repeat it all you like, but the fact that you repeated the trope (and are still trying to do that) that there was evidence of fraud that the courts refused to look at is evidence that you were gulled by their propaganda campaign.


----------



## Jake

Noel said:


> What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?



Round 2 presumably, per Parler. Might be met with a more heavy duty response this time though.


----------



## D_W

Noel said:


> What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?



Nothing - the capitol is open to the public on any given day. When they have an inauguration, anyone not cleared ahead of time will not be allowed anyone near it. Congress doesn't get remotely close to the same protection that the President does, and secret service and fbi details will be quicker to the trigger.


----------



## Noel

D_W said:


> Nothing - the capitol is open to the public on any given day. When they have an inauguration, anyone not cleared ahead of time will not be allowed anyone near it. Congress doesn't get remotely close to the same protection that the President does, and secret service and fbi details will be quicker to the trigger.



Indeed DW. Was interested in Ring's thoughts.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> Nothing - the capitol is open to the public on any given day. When they have an inauguration, anyone not cleared ahead of time will not be allowed anyone near it. Congress doesn't get remotely close to the same protection that the President does, and secret service and fbi details will be quicker to the trigger.



As @Jake said there's already rumours swirling on social media platforms that round two is scheduled for the 17th.


----------



## Jake

I think it will get squashed but all the chatter and planning from the threepers etc is for another go on the 17th not the 20th.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> As @Jake said there's already rumours swirling on social media platforms that round two is scheduled for the 17th.



I saw that, it doesn't really matter. Round 2 will end with the crowd being kept far away from any inauguration unless the government chooses not to. When the G20 protests occurred here and they actually wanted to squash them, it wasn't that difficult to do with crowd torture devices like directed audio trucks. There was a giant rent-a-mob assembled in my city for G-20 and they people generally moved like dirt from soap when the trucks came out.


----------



## D_W

Noel said:


> Indeed DW. Was interested in Ring's thoughts.



it's almost as if people are hoping for big trouble (or bigger) just for entertainment purposes. I'm not a fan. It tickles the same bone as gossip, I guess.


----------



## MIGNAL

Cheshirechappie said:


> That's not quite correct. The Courts did decline to hear some cases, and there was some video evidence and personal testimony. Whether that would have amounted to enough to change the results of State ballots is not known, and probably now never will be. Doesn't matter now, anyway.
> 
> It always seemed to me to be something of a 'shouting and arm waving' exercise, anyway. I very much doubt there has ever been an American presidential election without some fraud, despite which America, in general, seems to survive and thrive.



Actually I think there were some 60 court cases or at least 60 attempts to bring them to court. In the end no voter fraud was proven in a court of law. Not one. Quite a lot of $$$ was raised through donations to fight these court cases though. Not all that money went to the court cases. It was in the small print. Your 'video evidence' and 'personal testimony' is therefore complete and utter nonsense. Just as Trump said: I won, it was a landslide. He can say what the fck he wants. It's meaningless drivel.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> it's almost as if people are hoping for big trouble (or bigger) just for entertainment purposes. I'm not a fan. It tickles the same bone as gossip, I guess.



Some people have just genuinely bought into the idea of bringing about a Trump revolution unfortunately, some of them are just whackos, but some are more serious. Personally I hope they just fizzle out, but I don't think anyone concerned about Western democracy should be complacent.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake said:


> You can repeat it all you like, but the fact that you repeated the trope (and are still trying to do that) that there was evidence of fraud that the courts refused to look at is evidence that you were gulled by their propaganda campaign.


Video evidence of vote fraud (it's long, but it seems pretty conclusive to me). Probably only a few hundred or low thousand votes, but this is just one instance;

Georgia Video Footage Shows Poll Workers Staying Behind, Producing Boxes of Ballots (theepochtimes.com)


----------



## Jake

You are citing Epoch Times at me as vindication? ROFLMAO.

It's OK to be fooled, we all have been, best to try harder not be next time rather than getting more desperate not to admit it though.

PS outlets of bizarre religious cults are oddly enough not the best sources of truthful information.


----------



## billw

Cheshirechappie said:


> Video evidence of vote fraud (it's long, but it seems pretty conclusive to me). Probably only a few hundred or low thousand votes, but this is just one instance;
> 
> Georgia Video Footage Shows Poll Workers Staying Behind, Producing Boxes of Ballots (theepochtimes.com)



This was debunked over and over and over. The problem was that the people spewing it out refused to believe the explanation. I felt for Gabriel Sterling who was clearly fed up with having to run over this subject.


----------



## billw

Claim versus fact....



ps try not to get distracted by the guy having a private rave on the left.


----------



## custard

D_W said:


> Nothing - the capitol is open to the public on any given day. When they have an inauguration, anyone not cleared ahead of time will not be allowed anyone near it. Congress doesn't get remotely close to the same protection that the President does, and secret service and fbi details will be quicker to the trigger.




On the day of 911 I was due to attend a conference in Washington. My flight was turned around mid Atlantic and returned to London, some of colleagues on different flights were diverted to Newfoundland, but another group had flown in the day before and were already in Washington on that fateful day. The very next day we had been scheduled for a tour of the Capitol building, astonishingly my colleagues who had flown in early took that tour, as the Capitol remained open! 

I guess it underlines your comment that Congress doesn't receive anything like the same level of protection!


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> .....but I don't think anyone concerned about Western democracy should be complacent.



overdramatic. protest, even if you don't like the group or think they're wrong, is part of this democracy, even if it's not part of yours.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> overdramatic. protest, even if you don't like the group or think they're wrong, is part of this democracy, even if it's not part of yours.



The guys with the plasticuffs were not just protesting.

Edit: nor were the people with bombs and molotovs. Not sure which side of the line the person who killed the policeman by stoving his head in with a fire extinguisher fell - that could have been a carried away democratic protestor I suppose.


----------



## Cheshirechappie

Jake said:


> You are citing Epoch Times at me as vindication? ROFLMAO.
> 
> It's OK to be fooled, we all have been, best to try harder not be next time rather than getting more desperate not to admit it though.
> 
> PS outlets of bizarre religious cults are oddly enough not the best sources of truthful information.


Respectfully suggest you watch the video. 

It shows official observers being told that counting was ceasing, and leaving. After they'd left, counting continued, and suitcases of ballots were taken out from under tables and counted.

Doesn't matter that it's the Epoch Times (which I've never heard of, by the way) reporting it. The video is the official video of the count.

Discounting evidence by rubbishing the source doesn't work in this case, as you'd see if you actually bothered to watch the video I linked to.

I'd also be grateful if you'd stop being insulting. There's no need for it. I've not been fooled - I said there is evidence of fraud, and I've posted one example. There are others, but I can't be bothered. You'd only find some reason to rubbish them, and I've got other things to do this evening.

It doesn't alter the fact that Biden will president on 20th January. However, just as the outgoing president's adherence to absolute truth was often tenuous, so is that of quite large elements of the mainstream media, who have been less than objective about Donald J. right from his nomination. When they say, "There is no evidence of election fraud", that's not strictly accurate. Whether that fraud was sufficient to affect the result is pretty doubtful, being patchy and sometimes inconclusive rather than widespread and systemic, but evidence there most definitely is. 

Right. I'll leave you to it. Try not to insult me again, if you please.


----------



## Jake

Thanks, but the fact you are acting as a Falun Gong mouthpiece to try to defend yourself rather than questioning why you find that video on the Falun Gong propaganda site and not on reliable sites gives no confidence you are actually interested in working out what the truth is rather than shoring up your ego.

I saw this video ages ago - it has been extensively debunked as BillW said. Here's a reference for you (AP are careful with their fact checking unlike Falun Gong who prefer their content factfree):

Lengthy video makes false claims about 2020 election (apnews.com)


----------



## El Barto

Is it possible to delete ones own topics? It is genuinely annoying that moderators keep on editing my posts when I ask why moderators are editing my posts. They will probably do it to this one.


----------



## doctor Bob

Not that I posted on this thread, but the editing is getting a bit bonkers, you can't even call some one a ****** *****r anymore now you have to resort to *********e.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> The guys with the plasticuffs were not just protesting.
> 
> Edit: nor were the people with bombs and molotovs. Not sure which side of the line the person who killed the policeman by stoving his head in with a fire extinguisher fell - that could have been a carried away democratic protestor I suppose.



What do you think the chance is of having a dozen or 6 mentally ill individuals in a large protest group? I think it's pretty high. What percentage of the people in that group shot, murdered or threw molotov cocktails? Seems pretty low. 

They breached the capitol, as protesters have done before. Some committed crimes beyond that, they'll be prosecuted. That's how the system works. It's a vocal minority, not an influential one.


----------



## doctor Bob

D_W said:


> What do you think the chance is of having a dozen or 6 mentally ill individuals in a large protest group?



About the same as having a dozen nutters on a woodworking forum, pretty high in my opinion.


----------



## Ring

Noel said:


> What do you think will happen before or on the 20th that would halt the swearing in ceremony?


Military will be in control !


----------



## D_W

Ring said:


> Military will be in control !



This is starting to sound like some kind of fantasy soap opera.


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> What do you think the chance is of having a dozen or 6 mentally ill individuals in a large protest group? I think it's pretty high. What percentage of the people in that group shot, murdered or threw molotov cocktails? Seems pretty low.
> 
> They breached the capitol, as protesters have done before. Some committed crimes beyond that, they'll be prosecuted. That's how the system works. It's a vocal minority, not an influential one.


Yes - police are being battered to death with fire extinguishers all over the place . It's just normal. I blame the fire extinguishers


----------



## Jake

Sure there were some mentally ill/unstable people, gullible fools, etc. The whole Q-Anon thing is a really effective hook for that sort of thing.

That can't be said for the many representatives of the US's far right and neo-nazi groups who were deeply involved in it.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> ..all over the place ....



you have strangely imprecise comments (intentional, of course). The police are faring a whole lot better so far than they have in BLM protests. 









2016 shooting of Dallas police officers - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





When it's time to actually shut things like this down (Which will occur here if the decision is made), take a look at conclusion of events in this article. 

(in case you don't read far enough in the article, they sent a bomb disposal robot down a hall where the suspect was around the corner and blew him up. That leaves an interesting question - what is a police department doing with C4?).


----------



## JonG

Absolute insanity


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Sure there were some mentally ill/unstable people, gullible fools, etc. The whole Q-Anon thing is a really effective hook for that sort of thing.
> 
> That can't be said for the many representatives of the US's far right and neo-nazi groups who were deeply involved in it.



I'm playing devil's advocate here, but it's about the same mentality as we had with folks who really believed that we were going to have covert governmental cooperation with russia where russia is calling the shots and we're just puppets. The political center in this country will wake up if they have to - it's just noise at this point. Riddle me how many days this protest continued......


----------



## billw

Beijing must be thinking it’s Christmas all over again. If they believed in Xmas. Which they won’t.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

selectortone said:


> I would put more credence in the latter. There are massive, and very sophisticated operations, with huge buildings full of people, in Russia (and China, Iran and a dozen other places) logged into social media 24x7 peddling fake news in the form of conspiracy theories. Their purpose is to polarize the American population, foment hate and destabilise western democracy. On recent evidence, I'd say they are doing a pretty good job.
> 
> We are sleepwalking into an apocalypse.


Trudat


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Beijing must be thinking it’s Christmas all over again. If they believed in Xmas. Which they won’t.



We finally have something they won't try to copy.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

D_W said:


> We finally have something they won't try to copy.


Well, it's actually something that the USA exported to Hong some time ago - but the activists in Hong Kong throwing molotov cocktails and invading government offices were called plucky democratic freedom fighters, not domestic terrorists.

"Isn't it ironic"


----------



## Woody2Shoes

gregmcateer said:


> Interesting facts and views shared here. I love that we can all discuss, diverge, agree, disagree...
> Also interesting that all of us, (here and elsewhere), use sources as per our view. For example, there have been
> big fans of the BBC and other UK channels, (and to less extent US channels, obvs as we are predominantly in UK),
> Non committal watchers of the BBC and
> Huge anti, "defund the BBC'.
> I find it interesting that the last group tend to quote reliable internet sources, yet disregard unreliable BBC reporters, who put their names and faces to everything and are obliged to at least follow journalistic scrutiny.
> I genuinely don't think UK tv channels are politically affiliated, but it may seem so when they are scrutinising the govt of the day. We just happen to have a long time with a Conservative govt. I seem to remember the Left complaining of the right wing BBC during the Blair govt days.
> Seems to indicate they are annoying everyone, depending on their views - probably getting the balance ?


Nation states are not the only ones to recognise the value of social media enabled psy-ops. Murdoch is just one who would benefit from spreading anti-BBC propaganda.
In all this, you just have to ask "who stands to benefit if USA/EU/yournamehere is divided/weakened?"
It's as simple an idea as 'follow the money'....


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> snip Putinist shilling


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Jacob said:


> There _has_ been investigation of the complaints, including recounts. The Trump side have brought forward no evidence and non has been found, beyond marginal error. Trump himself was recorded on the phone trying to get someone to fix the vote. There have been investigations all over the place involving law processes and thousands of man hours.


I agree, but please take a moment to distinguish non/none/nun


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Ring said:


> President Trump for another 4 years . Lets wait and see on the 20th if there even is an inauguration !! Somehow i don’t think there will be ! But that’s just my view.


Why do you say that?


----------



## billw

Trainee neophyte said:


> Well, it's actually something that the USA exported to Hong some time ago - but the activists in Hong Kong throwing molotov cocktails and invading government offices were called plucky democratic freedom fighters, not domestic terrorists.
> 
> "Isn't it ironic"


OK I actually took part in some of the protests in HK. I’ve still got the remnants of a tear gas grenade and some rubber bullets as a memento.

There is a big difference. HK was about preserving democracy against an increasing influence from Beijing who want to eradicate it, so they can have “one China”.

The US was about trying to overturn democracy because it didn’t give the result the protestors wanted.

Note that China has already arrested the protestors and will imprison them (in a judicial system that simply provides the result the government want) for life. Those in the US will get tried for their crimes but do so in a court that could find them innocent because even under the circumstances the rule of law will prevail.

Any suggestion that Hong Kong and Washington are similar are not grounded in factual reality.


----------



## stuartpaul

D_W said:


> What do you think the chance is of having a dozen or 6 mentally ill individuals in a large protest group?


In America the chances of the whole group being mentally ill are amazingly high!


----------



## billw

stuartpaul said:


> In America the chances of the whole group being mentally ill are amazingly high!



Despite the constant opinion that any white perpetuators of mass gun slaughter are mentally ill, the facts suggest that they’re actually less likely to have a mental disorder than the average population.


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> snip putinist shilling]


----------



## D_W

stuartpaul said:


> In America the chances of the whole group being mentally ill are amazingly high!



In most protest groups, I'd say that's not true. This particular protest group appears to be ....well, pretty easy to sell on something that's not very likely. Let's put it that way to be polite. 

And ....somewhere in that group is a dude who went because his new girlfriend wanted to go and he was hoping to earn brownie points.


----------



## D_W

Trainee neophyte said:


> Well, it's actually something that the USA exported to Hong some time ago - but the activists in Hong Kong throwing molotov cocktails and invading government offices were called plucky democratic freedom fighters, not domestic terrorists.
> 
> "Isn't it ironic"



the hong kong protesters are more likely to have been right in this instance, though. I think the group who went to the capitol needs a lesson in not betting on extreme long shots. 

I think the folks promising some kind of legitimate fraud that swung the elections are worse than pro wrestling promoters. At least pro wrestling promoters are capable of giving you the match you want to see.


----------



## Lefley

When you can lose your house or life savings by going to the hospital, you are not living in a very good country.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> In most protest groups, I'd say that's not true. This particular protest group appears to be ....well, pretty easy to sell on something that's not very likely. Let's put it that way to be polite.



Revolutions do happen though (as you know). Like anything Trump does, this was not well enough executed. But among the crowd there were some who had a detailed and studied plan, knew where to go and went there well tooled up, not just milling around like the more easily led casual rioters.

The working gallows complete with operable platform was quite an unusual touch..


----------



## Jacob

Jake said:


> ..... Like anything Trump does, this was not well enough executed. .....


He's a chancer like Johnson, neither of them very clever nor having much idea about how things might turn out. Remember Johnson/Gove faces following the referendum - subdued, shocked and fearful of what they had unleashed?


----------



## D_W

Johnson can't possibly be in the same class as Trump.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> But among the crowd there were some who had a detailed and studied plan, knew where to go and went there well tooled up, not just milling around like the more easily led casual rioters.
> 
> The working gallows complete with operable platform was quite an unusual touch..



We do like grandstanding in the US, but I think we learned that from Europe years ago.

The folks you talk about with detailed plans are nutballs. If they try anything, they'll end up getting killed by security detail, or jailed. 

The narrative news writers are trying to stir up coup talk. Ever seen a coup that just comes in, and the leaves within a short period of time? It's all nonsense. Nothing is going to happen of any substance, and it would die out faster if the media covered it as a matter of fact thing and then stopped covering it. You know what I mean by that? Cover it as news, not as opinion fodder. I think less than 15 percent of the news publication material now is news, and the rest is opinion and commentary. It skips anything positive and stretches out the negative.


----------



## Jonm

Jacob said:


> He's a chancer like Johnson, neither of them very clever nor having much idea about how things might turn out. Remember Johnson/Gove faces following the referendum - subdued, shocked and fearful of what they had unleashed?


Johnson also wrote an article (never published) supporting the EU. My impression is that all Johnson believes in is himself, he supported leave to get him support with the Conservative Party members for a future leadership contest. He seems to have charisma and people overlook him being sacked for lying both as a journalist and from the Conservative front bench. Proroguing Parliament and disregarding international law seems very Trump like. He was lucky to be up against Corbyn with an electorate fed up with the eternal arguing. Very clever how the “Remoaner” conservatives were blamed for the chaos when it was the ERG who voted against the May deal.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

D_W said:


> Johnson can't possibly be in the same class as Trump.


I think you're right. Trump's self-evident mental illness and probable connections to organised crime (through his father) put him in a different league, but both are shamelessly dishonest and have very iffy friends (with interesting connections to 'big data' abuse and the Russian diaspora - Boris isn't called Donald after all...).
Trump is agressively dishonest, Boris is just dishonest. - both are prepared to sell their grandmother for power/approval.

PS When they're about to go on a podium and speak in public, nearly everyone checks that their shirt is tucked in and their hair is tidy - Boris actively ensures the opposite (I have spoken to people who've seen this themselves).


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> Johnson can't possibly be in the same class as Trump.


Johnson's legacy is likely to prove more destructive, divisive and longer lasting than Trump's.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> We do like grandstanding in the US, but I think we learned that from Europe years ago.



There's obviously a long history of using fake gallows as theatre in protests - they are usually a bit more stylised.



> The folks you talk about with detailed plans are nutballs. If they try anything, they'll end up getting killed by security detail, or jailed.



Nutballs as in bizarrely extreme politically, agreed. Mad, not so much.

I think that's by far the most likely outcome, like 99 and some .9s percent. They clearly have some military/police/GOP support but not enough to deliver. Doesn't mean they aren't trying - they clearly were and are.


----------



## doctor Bob

D_W........ just be aware a lot of posters on here would consider Bernie Sanders as a republican/ conservative due to his lack of socialist policys.


----------



## Misterdog

Jacob said:


> He's a chancer like Johnson, neither of them very clever nor having much idea about how things might turn out. Remember Johnson/Gove faces following the referendum - subdued, shocked and fearful of what they had unleashed?



Indeed we should do away with all this nonsense called democracy and install (x) to rule like that nice Mr Putin.


----------



## D_W

doctor Bob said:


> D_W........ just be aware a lot of posters on here would consider Bernie Sanders as a republican/ conservative due to his lack of socialist policys.



I noticed that with a few. Bernie is regarded as a bit of an silly person here because nothing that he ever proposes has any realistic path from where we are to his proposals. He's noted for what he feels is "being a perfectionist" - that is, he can't ever compromise on anything to get any legislation written or revised. I think it's intentional - it's easier to live on the public siphon without actually accomplishing anything than it is to attempt to get something through. 

Anyone worth their salt who had a point would work things in their direction rather than just being a foolish old storyteller who did nothing other than enjoy the attention. Vermont or NH is kind of the state if you want to be that type of person, though. They like to think they're special, independent and different. Vermont is an odd state - they love the Bernie narrative and require no permit to open carry or concealed carry firearms.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> D_W........ just be aware a lot of posters on here would consider Bernie Sanders as a republican/ conservative due to his lack of socialist policys.











Political positions of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## doctor Bob

Exactly, you'd want more than that Jacob. That is just a titbit for you


----------



## D_W

Have a look at the legislative accomplishments for Sanders (nothing of substance, which is really unusual for someone in office for 30 years). 

Note at the bottom of the page that his attendance record is absent 15% vs. an average of about 1/10th that. Kind of makes it look like he's not that interested in actually doing anything. That means he's doing nothing for his constituents, and I'd be pretty pineappled about that if I were in vermont. The expectation for reps and senators is that some part of the legislation that they're working on will benefit their constituency. 

Here's a summary of comments from wiki about the economy in vermont:
_" A 2010 University of Connecticut study reported that Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire tied as the most costly states in the U.S. for manufacturers "

"In 2011, Vermont was fifth among the states with the greatest backlog of foreclosures needing court processing, taking an estimated 18 years. The national average was eight years."

" Median annual property taxes as a percentage of median homeowners income, 5.4%, was rated as the third highest in the nation in 2011. "_

This is a recipe to have retirees in the state and not much business, which increases the tax burden on retirees. Not so great. 

I kind of feel like if I were a senator or representative, I'd be looking to fix some of those things.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> Exactly, you'd want more than that Jacob. That is just a titbit for you


Sanders pretty similar to the last labour agenda; civilised middle of the road "Euro socialist". If he'd got any further he would have got the Corbyn treatment ten times over.


----------



## Jacob

Ring said:


> Military will be in control !


Michael Moore says something similar. This is alarming and he says it's not all over yet. It's only just begun.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Sanders pretty similar to the last labour agenda; civilised middle of the road "Euro socialist". If he'd got any further he would have got the Corbyn treatment ten times over.



He has no chance of going further. If he ever got to a general election, he'd get pummeled. He's a liability for his party if he gets elected, and frankly a liability for everyone, because an silly person running against him could get elected easily. 

This past presidential election was an illustration of that - other than for covid, we have a booming economy, etc, taxes were cut (which people like despite a few screaming about it) and we haven't gotten into much in the line of worthless wars that leave us with a bunch of dead and wounded, and other countries with same. Some of the regulatory hurdles that keep small businesses from starting or staying in the US are relaxed. But the guy at the helm is a boob, and now a negative trouble-making boob. 

The election wouldn't have been nearly as close if we had a decent centrist who wasn't geriatric. At this point, our presidential elections are like a sports team with no prospects in the minor leagues. 

Bernie's plans would do one thing well - they'd cut the average standard of living here by a third, which is only pleasing to people who look at their relative standing (often vs. imaginary cohorts - the "wealthy majority who never work") vs. their absolute or nominal standing.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Michael Moore says something similar




Riddle us on what Michael Moore does to make a living.


----------



## rafezetter

I notice a long post I did is here is no longer - so I'll just leave this instead:

I find it odd that people whom have been proclaiming "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America*,* and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, *with liberty and justice for all*. " since kindergarten for the last 130 years would have managed to nail it down by now, but apparently they are still more interested in furthering thier own agendas to the detriment of that very same society and constitution upon which it was built.... weird huh? You'd think with that mantra being used daily for the last 130 years the USA would be leading the way as the greatest socially equal country in the world.... but it's actually almost the direct opposite; It's almost as though they don't actually BELEIVE those words, and that "freedom of speech" is nothing like it.

About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.

** to mean "the rules" are bent according to personal agenda

oh and "the right to a free trial" - they LOVE that one, gotta keep making sure all those Harvard Law School grads have somewhere to work, right?

Overlords FYI - I'm 50% American on my mothers side (and her father flew Liberators in WW II), so I have the right to express a viewpoint on America and Americans. (you can check my historical posts for "american" I've made multiple references to my heritage over the years)

(Edit - oh and her Brother died in Vietnam - Sorry for the oversight Uncle Bruce)


----------



## D_W

It's odd that you would refer to something that kids mindlessly repeat as if it were something that adults "proclaim". A couple of things:
* liberty and justice aren't "social equality" or "social justice warrior" type stuff
* some number of the nutballs believe the mantra that there was fraud that cost the elections. I have no idea what they read every day, because I don't read any of it, but I'd imagine it goes something like a laundry list of falsehoods about votes being changed on electronic machines or trucked elsewhere or kept from being counted

And some of them are just jerks. 

What part of this past week would suggest anything about limiting speech?


----------



## rafezetter

D_W said:


> It's odd that you would refer to something that kids mindlessly repeat as if it were something that adults "proclaim". A couple of things:
> * liberty and justice aren't "social equality" or "social justice warrior" type stuff
> * some number of the nutballs believe the mantra that there was fraud that cost the elections. I have no idea what they read every day, because I don't read any of it, but I'd imagine it goes something like a laundry list of falsehoods about votes being changed on electronic machines or trucked elsewhere or kept from being counted
> 
> And some of them are just jerks.
> 
> What part of this past week would suggest anything about limiting speech?



That was a reference to speech limiting behaviour elsewhere, read my posts first line again.

Is "liberty and justice for all" NOT social equality type stuff? Hnuh, ok then - please elaborate.

Ofc there are nutjobs - I had assumed you would know I wasn't referring to them, because there have not been enough nutjobs over the last 130 years to account for where America is currently.

So that leaves "we, the people" in the driving seat.


----------



## D_W

The word justice and social equality don't mean the same thing. When someone talks about social equality, they usually mean equality of outcome, not opportunity or regulation. 

I see now that you're attempting to equate the entirety of the united states to a minority of people and very recent history (perhaps even the last week or two). Not interested. We have the same constitution for over a couple of hundred years It's not going anywhere, and this movement is over soon once Trump is out of office and there isn't any real platform for him to agitate. 

We'll be back to the regular news seesaw (which is people will be complaining that joe biden will make us broke with social spending and higher taxes), vs the turn that it's on right now (all of the big corporations are getting tax breaks, we're going to burn up in the environment and go broke).


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.


----------



## TRITON

> About the only bloody constitutional point that is fiercely upheld without "personal viewpoint" ambiguity** is the one that's THE most stupid in modern society; "the right to bear arms", regardless of how many shootings of schools and childen there are.



It is crazy yes. The NRA et all appear to ignore the 80 or so people killed EVERY DAY, so they can if needed stand up against the government, using their guns. Also estimated nearly 200 are maimed or injured DAILY from public held firearms.

Which is a bit daft really because if the 'Government' wanted to move towards a dictatorship(Hilariously unlikely) there is no public held armament that could be used to hold them off. OK to wield your glock around in defence, when whats coming at you is a tank or infantry platoon carrying fully automatic 50cal machine guns.
Or hold up in your shack, when its the drone strike with hellfire missiles raining down that's going to end that battle.

The point that they could be used to hold back government forces is so ridiculous it not really funny. Maybe back in 1776 but not with todays military, Cold dead hand is damn right, and there would be a lot of them to wrench the weapon from. No member of the public or militia could withstand an assault from modern troops, because remember, in such a scenario, the gloves are off. Theres no standoff like with David Koresh. You surrender or they flatten the building and everyone in it.

Its estimated theres a BILLION hand guns in circulation in the US, and the only point of a handgun is to kill people. It's not a hunting weapon, and is pretty useless at putting food on the table, its sole and primary purpose is to kill people.

I dont really have an issue with hunting, and in some places that are extremely remore or rural, thats an accepted fact, though I do think for food animals we should always prefer to make dispatch as humane as possible, ie in a slaughterhouse where it is controlled, rather than some wannabe hunter blasting off and leaving the animal to suffer greatly before succumbing to its wounds. Taints the meat with Adrenalin for starters, before you get into the humanitarian side of it.


----------



## SamTheJarvis

It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.

Not to say active support of this by politicians large or small is great, but this to me seems to be a protest. A bloody and regrettable one, no doubt.



D_W said:


> Riddle us on what Michael Moore does to make a living.


He's basically a Youtuber by now.


----------



## Jacob

SamTheJarvis said:


> It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.
> 
> Not to say active support of this by politicians large or small is great, but this to me seems to be a protest. A bloody and regrettable one, no doubt.
> 
> 
> He's basically a Youtuber by now.


Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.
There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
Not looking good, more to come I expect.


----------



## billw

Jacob said:


> Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
> If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.



This is probably the most disturbing thing about the whole affair. The US was built upon racial inequality, it's in its DNA, will it ever go away? Not in our lifetimes.

Two policemen have died now.



Jacob said:


> There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
> Not looking good, more to come I expect.



I've seen some evidence but it seems to be at an individual level, not a huge pre-planned effort. Chalk this one up in the conspiracy theory column.

The National Guard didn't show up until late because who's the one meant to call them in? The President, who strangely enough said he did, but actually didn't. Pence did it, the guy left in the Capitol building to suffer all the consequences of his boss' actions.


----------



## billw

SamTheJarvis said:


> It's my opinion that this event was nowhere near what would constitute a terrorist attack or an attempt at insurrection. The politicians (professional and amateur) claiming this are doing it for well, a political end, naturally.



Americans struggle to call whites terrorists, so I think the politicians were making a strong point by repeatedly doing it. When you've got a country full of gun-toting lunatics and a politician says "I was scared for my life and those around me" I think they've got a point that they were indeed terrorised.

The politicians who objected to the vote and caused this whole scene were doing it for politician ends. Scared of a man with a Twitter account in case he gave them one of his mean nicknames. If it was in a TV show you'd laugh at it being unrealistic.


----------



## Jacob

billw said:


> Americans struggle to call whites terrorists, so I think the politicians were making a strong point by repeatedly doing it. When you've got a country full of gun-toting lunatics and a politician says "I was scared for my life and those around me" I think they've got a point that they were indeed terrorised.
> 
> The politicians who objected to the vote and caused this whole scene were doing it for politician ends. Scared of a man with a Twitter account in case he gave them one of his mean nicknames. If it was in a TV show you'd laugh at it being unrealistic.


Michael Moore puts a strong case. He makes a lot of valid points and even if you don't think they add up it's worth watching, just as a gripping part of the whole drama. Or you could cut to his conclusions at 50+ minutes in. He mentions insurrectionist posters apparently going up all over the place but I haven't seen anything on the media about this.


----------



## NormanB

Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.


----------



## Jacob

NormanB said:


> Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.


FBI are on the case it seems FBI puts up signs in DC seeking info on Capitol intruders


----------



## Yorkieguy

I don't want to engage in the discussion about events at Capitol Hill, save to say that despite the claims of those who engaged in the events believing they're 'True Americans' 'Defending the Constitution', I don't they've even read the Constitution. The First Amendment includes freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition government for redress of government. But that’s not without limitation. Along with rights go responsibilities and no-one is free, nor should they be, to engage in the violent events on Capitol Hill.

The Constitution and 'God':

Many seem confused about what the American Constitution says, and assume that terms such as 'One Nation Under God' and 'In God We Trust' are part of it. The opposite is true. Neither ‘One Nation Under God’ nor ‘In God we Trust are any part of the constitution - they actually contradict the First Amendment and were not introduced until the 1950s.

Amendment I of the American Constitution made it clear that there was to be complete separation of State and Religion. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There was an important reason for that – they didn’t want the State to impose any particular religion upon the people because it could put them in the same position as they were in in England, with one ‘brand’ or religion getting the upper hand over another (As in Protestants V Catholics), leading to the sort of persecution that they’d endured.

The Puritans who sailed from England to America did so primarily due to religious persecution. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it.

‘One Nation Under God’:

‘One Nation Under God’ goes against and contradicts the First Amendment in that by inference, it establishes religion and State. It was not introduced into the pledge until June 1954. During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954 President Eisenhower said:

“From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war”.

That statement imposes religion by the State upon its people - by including it, America ceased to be a 'democracy' and became a 'theocracy'.

Pledge of Allegiance’:

Again, nothing to do with the Constitution – it first appeared in a popular American Children’s magazine. It was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy – a Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instil the idea of American nationalism in students and to encourage children to raise flags above their schools. Bellamy's original Pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

Bellamy designed the Pledge it to be quick and to the point, to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he initially considered adding the words _equality_ and _fraternity_ but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.

In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, _The American Monthly_, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge: I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.

In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

America introduced the phrase “one nation under God,” at the height of the Cold War in 1954, as the country tried to distinguish itself from “godless” communism. In doing so, they went against both the establishment clause ('No law respecting the establishment of religion'), and the right to free speech, by persecuting those who do not wish to recite the pledge because they are not religious. That doesn’t mean dissenters don’t support the rest of the pledge, but they’re harassed and persecuted for not reciting it. If students are coerced into pledging their allegiance as a blind expression of loyalty to a state, it violate the rights and freedoms of its citizens - it does not resemble freedom of thought and it’s not freedom at all:

Pledge Laws: Controlling Protest and Patriotism in Schools | Teaching Tolerance

‘In God We Trust’:

" In God We Trust " was not part of the American Constitution, and as with ‘One Nation Under God’ goes against the First Amendment. ", is the official motto of the United States of America and of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956. It supplanting the non-religious motto ‘E pluribus unum’, in use since 1776 on the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The thirteen-letter motto was actually from an English magazine. At the time of the American Revolution, the phrase appeared regularly on the title page of the London-based Gentleman's Magazine, which collected articles from many sources into one periodical. Translated, it means "Out of many, one”. The inference of its use on the Seal being ‘many people united as one’.

Despite the high level of real or pretended religiosity in America, there will be many millions of non-religious Americans, just as there are in the UK who have no religion, and cannot recite the pledge in its entirety with any real conviction. The same applies to the British National Anthem. I Don’t recite the first word of the British National Anthem (‘God save our Gracious Queen) as I’m a humanist and don’t believe in the existence of any supernatural creator. I'm in the majority in Britain in that regard, but it doesn't mean I'm disloyal. (Like many who have given an oath of allegiance, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Members of the Armed Forces, I ‘affirmed’ - I did not ‘Swear by Almighty God’).

Fifty-two percent of the public in Britain say they do not belong to any religion, compared with 31% in 1983 when the British Attitude Survey began tracking religious belief. The number of people identifying as Christian has fallen from 66% to 38% over the same period. Only 1% of people aged 18-24 identify as Church of England. Even among over-75s, the most religious age group, only one in three people describe themselves as C of E.

Posted for information - not argument.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Five people died including one policeman beaten to death. Let alone all the other details.
> If it had been a small group of black, asian, muslim, etc. intruders with a fraction of the weaponry it would have been regarded as a major terrorist attack and ALL of them if not already shot would have been hunted down and arrested.
> There's also mounting evidence of pre planning and collusion amongst republicans, police (hardly showed up) and others in security forces, and involvement of well equipped and prepared ex military (Ashli Babbitt for starters).
> Not looking good, more to come I expect.



Fantasy, Jacob. If it had been any of the groups you mention and they'd publicly gone on and on about their votes not being counted, we would've considered them foolish for thinking their votes hadn't been counted. 

Are you going to go out on a limb and say nobody has been arrested?


----------



## gregmcateer

In fairness, D_W, Jacob isn't talking about a different group going "on and on about their votes not being counted..." he is talking about the group storming, (or if you prefer 'gathering peacefully but insistently') in the Capitol building.


----------



## D_W

gregmcateer said:


> In fairness, D_W, Jacob isn't talking about a different group going "on and on about their votes not being counted..." he is talking about the group storming, (or if you prefer 'gathering peacefully but insistently') in the Capitol building.



We generally estimate or know the motive of someone when they "attack". In this case, an emotional mob went to the capitol, I guess four of them got killed and in one fight with one individual, an officer was killed. 

I'm not a huge fan of people doing anything when they're emotional. I think if the mob intended to actual go to the capitol and seize something, they'd still be there. They went and they left. 

If we had restrictions on religious freedom and muslims were all bottled up over it screaming "we want religious freedoms", they wouldn't be labeled as terrorists. When BLM rallies led to police shooting, I don't think 95% of the US saw the rally participants as domestic terrorists, we saw them as being upset with one video after another of poorly treated people of their own race ending up dead at the hands of police. Nobody here thought we were going to end up with a "Terroristic" threat (such as some long term intent to ambush police and eliminate them). Of course, there are fringe groups here who think there should be no police. 

If the motive of the mob in general was to go, rush the capitol building to make a statement (misguided) and they came in and left, why would they be labeled terrorists if the BLM movement isn't? I think antifa and the far right fringe groups have already been labeled domestic terrorists. You can probably find people on the right fringe group as a small minority on the capitol protests, as well as antifa present at BLM movements. That doesn't mean BLM gets labeled as antifa, etc.


----------



## D_W

Yorkieguy said:


> I don't want to engage in the discussion about events at Capitol Hill, save to say that despite the claims of those who engaged in the events believing they're 'True Americans' 'Defending the Constitution', I don't they've even read the Constitution. The First Amendment includes freedom of speech, freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition government for redress of government. But that’s not without limitation. Along with rights go responsibilities and no-one is free, nor should they be, to engage in the violent events on Capitol Hill.
> 
> The Constitution and 'God':
> 
> Many seem confused about what the American Constitution says, and assume that terms such as 'One Nation Under God' and 'In God We Trust' are part of it. The opposite is true. Neither ‘One Nation Under God’ nor ‘In God we Trust are any part of the constitution - they actually contradict the First Amendment and were not introduced until the 1950s.
> 
> Amendment I of the American Constitution made it clear that there was to be complete separation of State and Religion. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> There was an important reason for that – they didn’t want the State to impose any particular religion upon the people because it could put them in the same position as they were in in England, with one ‘brand’ or religion getting the upper hand over another (As in Protestants V Catholics), leading to the sort of persecution that they’d endured.
> 
> The Puritans who sailed from England to America did so primarily due to religious persecution. The non-separatist Puritans wanted to remain in the church and reform it from within. The separatist Puritans felt the church was too corrupt to reform and instead wanted to separate from it.
> 
> ‘One Nation Under God’:
> 
> ‘One Nation Under God’ goes against and contradicts the First Amendment in that by inference, it establishes religion and State. It was not introduced into the pledge until June 1954. During the Cold War era, many Americans wanted to distinguish the United States from the state atheism promoted by Marxist-Leninist countries, a view that led to support for the words "under God" to be added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Congress passed the necessary legislation and Eisenhower signed the bill into law on Flag Day, June 14, 1954 President Eisenhower said:
> 
> “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war”.
> 
> That statement imposes religion by the State upon its people - by including it, America ceased to be a 'democracy' and became a 'theocracy'.
> 
> Pledge of Allegiance’:
> 
> Again, nothing to do with the Constitution – it first appeared in a popular American Children’s magazine. It was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy – a Baptist Minister and Christian Socialist. The Bellamy "Pledge of Allegiance" was first published in the September 8 issue of the popular children's magazine The Youth's Companion as part of the National Public-School Celebration of Columbus Day, a celebration of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas. The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instil the idea of American nationalism in students and to encourage children to raise flags above their schools. Bellamy's original Pledge read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
> 
> Bellamy designed the Pledge it to be quick and to the point, to be recited in 15 seconds. As a socialist, he initially considered adding the words _equality_ and _fraternity_ but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans.
> 
> In 1906, The Daughters of the American Revolution's magazine, _The American Monthly_, used the following wording for the pledge of allegiance, based on Balch's Pledge: I pledge allegiance to my flag, and the republic for which it stands. I pledge my head and my heart to God and my country. One country, one language and one flag.
> 
> In 1923, the National Flag Conference called for the words "my Flag" to be changed to "the Flag of the United States," so that new immigrants would not confuse loyalties between their birth countries and the US. The words "of America" were added a year later. Congress officially recognized the Pledge for the first time, in the following form, on June 22, 1942. “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
> 
> America introduced the phrase “one nation under God,” at the height of the Cold War in 1954, as the country tried to distinguish itself from “godless” communism. In doing so, they went against both the establishment clause ('No law respecting the establishment of religion'), and the right to free speech, by persecuting those who do not wish to recite the pledge because they are not religious. That doesn’t mean dissenters don’t support the rest of the pledge, but they’re harassed and persecuted for not reciting it. If students are coerced into pledging their allegiance as a blind expression of loyalty to a state, it violate the rights and freedoms of its citizens - it does not resemble freedom of thought and it’s not freedom at all:
> 
> Pledge Laws: Controlling Protest and Patriotism in Schools | Teaching Tolerance
> 
> ‘In God We Trust’:
> 
> " In God We Trust " was not part of the American Constitution, and as with ‘One Nation Under God’ goes against the First Amendment. ", is the official motto of the United States of America and of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956. It supplanting the non-religious motto ‘E pluribus unum’, in use since 1776 on the design of the Great Seal of the United States. The thirteen-letter motto was actually from an English magazine. At the time of the American Revolution, the phrase appeared regularly on the title page of the London-based Gentleman's Magazine, which collected articles from many sources into one periodical. Translated, it means "Out of many, one”. The inference of its use on the Seal being ‘many people united as one’.
> 
> Despite the high level of real or pretended religiosity in America, there will be many millions of non-religious Americans, just as there are in the UK who have no religion, and cannot recite the pledge in its entirety with any real conviction. The same applies to the British National Anthem. I Don’t recite the first word of the British National Anthem (‘God save our Gracious Queen) as I’m a humanist and don’t believe in the existence of any supernatural creator. I'm in the majority in Britain in that regard, but it doesn't mean I'm disloyal. (Like many who have given an oath of allegiance, Judges, Magistrates, Police Officers, Members of the Armed Forces, I ‘affirmed’ - I did not ‘Swear by Almighty God’).
> 
> Fifty-two percent of the public in Britain say they do not belong to any religion, compared with 31% in 1983 when the British Attitude Survey began tracking religious belief. The number of people identifying as Christian has fallen from 66% to 38% over the same period. Only 1% of people aged 18-24 identify as Church of England. Even among over-75s, the most religious age group, only one in three people describe themselves as C of E.
> 
> Posted for information - not argument.



The point of contention about first amendment and religion is that there would be no state sponsored religion. That probably came out of English influence and other countries with an official church. My ancestors fled to the United States from Germany. They were relegated to an area of the country where subsistence farming was difficult and famine and death was common. Why were they sent to that region? Because they weren't Catholic. They came to the US partially to practice their religion, but much to avoid being pushed around by government. In our background are relatives (specifically named) who had to travel to Philadelphia prior to independence to assure the king of england that they wouldn't be separatists (their crime was printing a newspaper in german and refusing to use english day to day. When the revolutionary war occurred, they didn't want to fight for anyone- why trust a new government? Under threat of prison, they ended up being logistical support more or less (hauling supplies and staying away from active war). 

I doubt they would've cared what the government language recited about "God" if they weren't forced to go to a state sponsored church or face retribution. 

As far as the pledge and other such things (I mentioned earlier here that most of this kind of thing started in the early 1900s in the US, as a narrative). In the US, people view something like "pledging allegiance to God and country" far differently than they would pledging allegiance to the Pope, etc. I'd imagine less than half of the united states participates in any kind of organized religion at this point, but since the whole thing is toothless, nobody cares. It's not brainwashing anyone, and you don't get in trouble if you choose (even as a child) not to say the pledge. If they took the pledge away, only the older people would care. The same folks who think the draft should be reinstated because "that's the only way kids learn responsibility, and we had to do it, too". 

Most of the people in the US have read the constitution. It's part of the school curriculum, and they'd have been tested on the content of it. Whether or not they remember later, most probably not. I'd bet also that a huge number of the people in the capitol last week had pocket constitutions or apps, though (I don't, and neither does most of the country who is more centrist or especially folks on the left). 

Your statement about "being free to commit violent acts" is an implied falsehood. Nobody is free to do that. There is a freedom of assembly here, but that's not "freedom of assembly plus anything else that occurs during the assembly". 

The FBI and capitol police will be free to charge anyone they can identify and I have yet to see an opinion that people who are being arrested shouldn't be arrested (though when it came to Kavanaugh or protesting health care bill modifications, the notion that people refusing to leave often complained that they shouldn't be arrested and that the police were too heavy handed). It's more typical in a peaceful protest for someone to be arrested and fined some minimal amount ($50 or so). 

I think one of the points of contention in the first amendment have been your interpretation (that the government would never have anything to say about religion or as you're contending, be able to even recognize that it exists) because the amendment prohibited the government from putting up hurdles to establishing religion or practicing religion. Nobody in the US wants to see a state sponsored religion, but there's a faction of folks who contend that the first amendment says exactly what it does say, not that the government would never use the word "God" in anything. Such a thing could've been easily written in the amendment if that was the point. It's evolved from "religion" to "any use of the word God in anything taxpayer funded".


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Just for balance, wikipedia has this to say about the George Floyd riots:



> As of June 22, 2020, police have made 14,000 arrests in 49 cities since the protests began, with most arrests being locals charged with low-level offenses such as violating curfews or blocking roadways.[3] As of June 8, 2020, at least 19 people have died during the protests.[148] The Los Angeles Police Department announced that "homicides went up 250% and victims shot went up 56%" from May 31 to June 6.[149] Several protests over Floyd's death, including one in Chicago,[150] turned into riots



When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist? 

Just for Jake, I think I may change my avatar, so everyone knows straight away that I am actually a Russian hacker.


----------



## D_W

NormanB said:


> Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.



it's all fun and games at the "great trespass" event. If you go to actual courts in the US and make clown defenses like that, the court is insulted and any leniency you may have had is gone. 

One of the problems here is actually that - that the court will often offer individuals a plea that's a tiny fraction of the max potential punishment. People who are otherwise innocent will take the plea upon legal advice that it's a safer bet than challenging based on the truth. The reason for that is simple - it takes almost no time to write a plea and keep the court docket clear for cases that need to actually appear, but it incents a lot of people who didn't do anything to be dumped in the same category as people who did and who are getting off easy on the plea. 

In the event that a prosecutor really wants to get someone, then a plea isn't offered and the fight is on. Most of the trespassers here will be offered a fine and that's it (which is as it should be if someone was just flowing with the crowd and doing nothing violent). In most protests in the US, people assembling illegally usually aren't arrested, but someone taped inciting violence or carrying it out will be. We had a BLM protest here (that I didn't walk through) that did get violent, and my neighbor (a cameraman) was blindsided, knocked to the ground, knocked out and kicked. Literally saved by people who were watching a livestream from a local office and who ran out when they saw him getting beaten. At least one police car was burned and there was a fair amount of violence, but there weren't that many arrests. 

So I hope we're spared of the nonsense after this that most of the capitol trespassers who did nothing other than go with the flow and then go out don't get arrested. It's generally the case for all protests here. Notable folks like the guy with the tadoos and horns, though, arrest came quickly. Same with anyone seen vandalizing or carrying things with them that they _didn't own. _


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist?
> 
> ...


When you've worked it out you could ask yourself what was so different about the 1st June protest and 6th Jan. Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures


----------



## D_W

Trainee neophyte said:


> Just for balance, wikipedia has this to say about the George Floyd riots
> 
> When is an invasion not a riot, and when is a peaceful protestor not a terrorist?
> 
> Just for Jake, I think I may change my avatar, so everyone knows straight away that I am actually a Russian hacker.


14,000 arrests is probably about a tenth of a percent or less of the people involved in the protests, and probably a small fraction of the folks who either stole things or slugged someone. I don't recall the incident mentioned above being termed a riot even though there were burned police vehicles and news crews, etc, getting beaten up. 









Violence against journalists is not new, but attacks on those covering #BlackLivesMatter protests is a bad sign for US press freedom


Since they began, journalists covering the recent #BlackLivesMatter protests in the US have been subject to violence and intimidation. Paul Reilly, Anastasia Veneti, and Darren Lilleker write that …



blogs.lse.ac.uk





Most of us in the US would term this a particularly European article. At the top, the article attempts to blame Trump for violence against journalists, but then details situations only of police and leftist protesters beating up journalists (the capitol riots only resulted in journalists "feeling" like they were in an unsafe situation). 

Trump can create plenty of honest trouble, there's no need for exaggeration based on "feeling" about something that might occur when the same thing is actually occurring for other reasons.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> When you've worked it out you ask yourself what was so different about the 1st June protest and 6th Jan. Maga v BLM: how police handled the Capitol mob and George Floyd activists – in pictures



One was instantaneous and over quickly, four people got killed in the protest group (it appears that two were stroke and heart attack, and another accidental trampling - which must be why we haven't heard much about them), and the other was an ongoing set of protests that had already been occurring for 6 days (generally involving about 15-25 million people in total)? Do you think that the capitol protest response would've been the same on the 6th day? If there's a second instance of this, the response won't be so mild as far as the police go.


----------



## gregmcateer

"14,000 arrests is probably about a tenth of a percent or less of the people involved in the protests,"

I don't know the numbers either, but by your argument 're the Capitol building, the remainder of the BLM protesters were also 'going with the flow'

And over here, the BLM protests that did get violent DID get reported as riots- it wasn't sugar coated in reports we saw and heard.


----------



## D_W

Most of the BLM protests weren't described as riots here until they rose to the level of widespread vandalizing and destruction/violence. 

I think most in the US would consider a 100k protest that involved 20 arrests, etc. as a protest and not a riot. I think it was also considered a racist statement to refer to any of the BLM protests as a riot by our press. 

Only this morning did I look up an estimate of the number of folks involved in those protests to see if it could be scaled against the capitol trespass and melee. 15MM BLM protesters on the low side, 25MM on the high side. 

I can't find an accurate number for capitol protesters, but in keeping with other protests gone violent here, it appears that the arrests are focused on instigators or people showing up with bad intentions. The FBI will likely go through every bit of social media and carrier data for everyone they can identify from video (that's their job). 

One out of every 1500 or so BLM protesters managed to get arrested based on the midpoint of those numbers above counted against the number of arrests. I'm sure there was a larger number of folks trespassing on government property in those instances or breaking things that just never got arrested because there's no stomach for it here (or as I'd assess it, the BLM protesters have a point, so why be heavy handed?).


----------



## D_W

Has anyone seen an accurate number re: the protester count?

When the news broke, I saw an allegation of 100k people. The pictures that I see don't match that. Rule of thumb, the smaller the group of nutballs, the dumber the protest reason (presumably something worthwhile would've attracted a larger group). I see what looks like a tenth of that, but it's hard to gauge. 

(i do see in wiki the same thing jacob just parroted, so I'm guessing jacob is just repeating what he sees and not thinking very hard. What would've happened if BLM showed up at the capitol? If their first protest was at the capitol in the same numbers, likely the same response as occurred last week. Just as the capitol rioters would show up to face nat. guard troops and probably traveling police like G-20 style if they organized a second protest).


----------



## kwigly

Regarding the claims of a “stolen” election that presumably triggered the protest (“riot”) at the US Capitol; Its not the individual “fake” votes that worry me, as I figure the “dead people votes” and “double voting votes” for each side probably mostly cancel each other out.
What does make me pause, are the claims of vote counting manipulation, such as the claims in this (partisan) clip  I don’t see that such claims, claims of computer software vote switching and evidence of blocks of negative votes, have been adequately considered or addressed.
I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."


----------



## RobinBHM

I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.


Michael Moore questions a lot of the odd details and offers an explanation in his youtube vid


----------



## D_W

kwigly said:


> Regarding the claims of a “stolen” election that presumably triggered the protest (“riot”) at the US Capitol; Its not the individual “fake” votes that worry me, as I figure the “dead people votes” and “double voting votes” for each side probably mostly cancel each other out.
> What does make me pause, are the claims of vote counting manipulation, such as the claims in this (partisan) clip  I don’t see that such claims, claims of computer software vote switching and evidence of blocks of negative votes, have been adequately considered or addressed.
> I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Joseph Stalin "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes."




I think most of these claims are proven false or factually misleading (the software switching, etc). There was one last week from a woman claiming her vote was switched showing a voting stub. The supposed stub (and others shown like it) clearly showed a vote for someone she said she didn't vote for. 

And then the company later who was attributed to the error came out publicly and said flatly that while each vote created a unique record, none of their stubs had any unencrypted information on them (as in, the story was false from the start because reading any of the vote stubs isn't possible without having the database to unencrypt what they display). 

There is nothing compelling enough for a court to take on, or filed by someone with standing to even make the filing, which is a pretty strong indication that there's nothing substantive. 

When it came to talking about the "fraud" here locally, there was an accusation that some thousandths of illegitimate votes were going to be counted, but the judgement decisions are based on what the election committee decides - e.g., mail in votes signed in the wrong place, etc, that indicated a clear choice. To the side wanting the vote, it because something unfairly complicated that anyone (especially a senior) could screw up, and to the person wanting to disallow the vote, it just becomes a summarized comment "they allowed ___ illegitimate votes". 

The summary without the background gets forwarded leaving someone to imagine all kinds of fraud when granny frau in the 26th ward clearly wanted to vote for candidate X and any reasonable person would look at the ballot and not be confused with intention. 

In the case here locally, when each type of situation was considered, *all* votes that met the voter mistake classification were counted, not just one side or another.


----------



## britinfrance

D_W said:


> I think most of these claims are proven false or factually misleading (the software switching, etc). There was one last week from a woman claiming her vote was switched showing a voting stub. The supposed stub (and others shown like it) clearly showed a vote for someone she said she didn't vote for.
> 
> And then the company later who was attributed to the error came out publicly and said flatly that while each vote created a unique record, none of their stubs had any unencrypted information on them (as in, the story was false from the start because reading any of the vote stubs isn't possible without having the database to unencrypt what they display).
> 
> There is nothing compelling enough for a court to take on, or filed by someone with standing to even make the filing, which is a pretty strong indication that there's nothing substantive.
> 
> When it came to talking about the "fraud" here locally, there was an accusation that some thousandths of illegitimate votes were going to be counted, but the judgement decisions are based on what the election committee decides - e.g., mail in votes signed in the wrong place, etc, that indicated a clear choice. To the side wanting the vote, it because something unfairly complicated that anyone (especially a senior) could screw up, and to the person wanting to disallow the vote, it just becomes a summarized comment "they allowed ___ illegitimate votes".
> 
> The summary without the background gets forwarded leaving someone to imagine all kinds of fraud when granny frau in the 26th ward clearly wanted to vote for candidate X and any reasonable person would look at the ballot and not be confused with intention.
> 
> In the case here locally, when each type of situation was considered, *all* votes that met the voter mistake classification were counted, not just one side or another.


I thought politics were banned from this Forum - just asking


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I find it hard to understand how the protestors manage to get into the capitol building.



They allowed it, just as they have other protests. Consider possible outcomes here - two are killed intentionally or due to negligence. Another person by accident and then a heart attack and a stroke. 

If fedgov here wants no access to those buildings, there will be no access, but sometimes the better choice is to allow the event to occur rather than creating a 10k participant fisticuffs and shooting, pushing the emotional responses even further into stupid. 

Consider the kavanaugh issue - does anyone really think it would've been that hard to deny access to anyone protesting? It's a choice that they make on the first go around to let things go. Once they've had enough, it stops. There is no group of citizens who will do anything once large urban police forces get all of their military surplus wares and crowd control out, but nobody wants to do it unless it's necessary. 

Jacob brought up the BLM thing. After millions went out in protests where some turned violent, 6 days in, they threatened to storm the capitol in online posts and the national guard showed up on the steps. That's the end of it. 

Sometimes the decision not to "staff up and squash" the crowd doesn't go as expected. I still think it was the right decision to let it go on in this case. If the crowd would've stayed in the capital, they would've been extracted, and apparently after the lady got shot on the one end, the folks anywhere close had a change of affection and followed police out (the folks on the other side were unaware). 

The total time between breach and a push out police force was 3 hours.


----------



## gregmcateer

I'm going to fling out a question/ thought, as I truly don't know if it answers the problem or not, as I'm not bright enough or statistically capable of being able to work it out:

If voter fraud in any election anywhere is genuine issue/ concern, if voting is made compulsory, would that mean once everyone's cast their vote by whatever means is approved, then the count 'knows' there's not been double counting?
Please don't shoot me down if I'm being naive or dopey - I'm genuinely interested in the answer and why or why not. 

And if anyone can be bothered, can they explain why the US uses the college vote system rather than straight count of votes for the president, (as congress and the Senate are representing their constituency, I assume)?


----------



## D_W

britinfrance said:


> I thought politics were banned from this Forum - just asking



I think if you read my comments above, you'll find them to be less political and more a mechanical discussion of how misinformation and legitimate votes with unintentional mistakes get turned into a different story.

it's kind of hard to gauge whether or not a brexit discussion would remain on an american board that bans religious or political discussion, because nobody in the US has any clue that there's something over the horizon from our shores!


----------



## britinfrance

D_W said:


> I think if you read my comments above, you'll find them to be less political and more a mechanical discussion of how misinformation and legitimate votes with unintentional mistakes get turned into a different story.
> 
> it's kind of hard to gauge whether or not a brexit discussion would remain on an american board that bans religious or political discussion, because nobody in the US has any clue that there's something over the horizon from our shores!


 Your point has been taken, thanks


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> They allowed it, just as they have other protests. Consider possible outcomes here - two are killed intentionally or due to negligence. Another person by accident and then a heart attack and a stroke.
> 
> If fedgov here wants no access to those buildings, there will be no access, but sometimes the better choice is to allow the event to occur rather than creating a 10k participant fisticuffs and shooting, pushing the emotional responses even further into stupid.
> 
> Consider the kavanaugh issue - does anyone really think it would've been that hard to deny access to anyone protesting? It's a choice that they make on the first go around to let things go. Once they've had enough, it stops. There is no group of citizens who will do anything once large urban police forces get all of their military surplus wares and crowd control out, but nobody wants to do it unless it's necessary.
> 
> Jacob brought up the BLM thing. After millions went out in protests where some turned violent, 6 days in, they threatened to storm the capitol in online posts and the national guard showed up on the steps. That's the end of it.
> 
> Sometimes the decision not to "staff up and squash" the crowd doesn't go as expected. I still think it was the right decision to let it go on in this case. If the crowd would've stayed in the capital, they would've been extracted, and apparently after the lady got shot on the one end, the folks anywhere close had a change of affection and followed police out (the folks on the other side were unaware).
> 
> The total time between breach and a push out police force was 3 hours.


Many thanks for your reply, some great insight....quite a few things that hadn't occurred to me.

If the MAGAs perceive their protesting is being suppressed that will only feed the voter fraud conspiracies.


----------



## billw

I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -

What is the actual point of North Dakota?


----------



## RobinBHM

billw said:


> I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -
> 
> What is the actual point of North Dakota?


No1 honey producer


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Many thanks for your reply, some great insight....quite a few things that hadn't occurred to me.
> 
> If the MAGAs perceive their protesting is being suppressed that will only feed the voter fraud conspiracies.



Bingo - same with the kavanaugh breach. nobody wants to see a middle aged woman who may have a true terrible back story being led out. Let people have their protest, fine them (if necessary) later, lock up the real criminals (like the folks who came with destructive devices) and lock down later if you have to.

Doing more at the outset could be morally or ethically wrong, or in the case of this mob (capitol), feeding the trolls.

I see this morning that the FBI has warned the folks wanting retribution (hurry up and impeach trump rather than waiting him out) that they risk serious escalation. I agree with that. Let it run its course. Has anyone seen a kavanaugh story lately? I haven't. This whole election conspiracy will soon be relegated to the folks who are out and about looking for:
1) aliens
2) elvis, because he's still really walking around
3) sasquatch (because elvis has probably been hanging around with him, as hard as both are to get on camera lately)
4) the people looking for the stolen and manipulated ballots


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I think we need to ask some of the important questions about the USA. My first one is this: -
> 
> What is the actual point of North Dakota?



There would almost certainly have to be cows and wheat there. As well as hutterites. The N.Dak/montana northern bits are popular with unusual societies who have historically gone back and forth between the US and canada. 

Other than that, I'd say their biggest resource is wind.


----------



## TRITON

> cows and wheat


I read this as Steak and Beer.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> This whole election conspiracy will soon be relegated to the folks who are out and about looking for



Over the last few days an "election fraud" conspiracist has started making loads of threads on diynot forum.
This is not a new member - he has been on the site years

It really shocked me how brainwashed this person is....honestly the posts were endless and fired off faster than anybody could counter them with facts.

The central theme was "you are just sheep following mainstream media lies"

The guy was posting loads of stuff lifted off Parler, every one either a known conspiracist or had connections to Trump.......

I learnt one thing: irony is totally lost on conspiracists.


----------



## D_W

Recall the early parts of the russian election thing here in the states? It could've been over in a year. There was nothing there of substance. Lots of stuff found out about guys associated with the president, but they were acting in their own self interest (that's the most likely scenario). It went on for what....three years? My mother still believes that someone from russia calls the US, wires money to the president (but only one of them, not the others) and tells the president what to do and what to look past. 

This election stuff is the same way. My mother's view of it (which goes along with these election conspiracies) is "if it keeps coming up, then there must be something to it". My response to her was "if there was something material or substantive, we'd know about it for now. If something keeps coming up, that means people keep clicking on it or donating money paid to people to keep bringing it up". She'd have sent me to my room if she could have. 

the conspiracy theories now are much the same. the inner 75% of the population doesn't believe either of the issues was material, but they don't vote with clicks and money. The fringes do. The corporate concerns stay away from the fringe and throw their money at the middle 75%, or causes on behalf of them. The problem with the 12 1/2% on each end (making up numbers, but you get the point) is that they don't realize that they are almost identical to each other. They both want a certain answer without wanting to be burdened by truth. If you can fuel yourself with something that's not proof, you can go for a long time, because who can prove you wrong?


----------



## billw

I saw this placard and thought it was one of Heston Blumenthal's recipes.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> I read this as Steak and Beer.



I think they're teetotalers (a bunch of protestant rural germans - way different than the urban germans in germany). But it's actually true that a lot of the grains that go into beer are up in that part of the country. I think coors is near there and a lot of the grower's contracts are up there, but I wouldn't go so far as to call most of what they make "beer". 

Pastured beef is a good guess, though. That's "dryland" area in that part of the country. Enough water to grow grass and wheat and things of the like, but not corn or soybeans. They're grown there only with irrigation. Marginal dryland is great for cattle grazing.


----------



## billw

This is an interesting read about dealing with conspiracy theorists and some of the reasons that people get absorbed into them.

How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? - BBC News


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I saw this placard and thought it was one of Heston Blumenthal's recipes.
> 
> View attachment 100726



I'd not do well with those people...

.."so....aside from what you say is in the vaccine, I hear it's pretty effective, and I'm in!"


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> This is an interesting read about dealing with conspiracy theorists and some of the reasons that people get absorbed into them.
> 
> How should you talk to friends and relatives who believe conspiracy theories? - BBC News



I do #3 and #4, but I have to admit that I'm antagonizing rather than trying to solve a conspiracy theorist. Use words like "what's likely" or "what would be more likely than that in this case, and why are we treating several unlikely things linked together, which is really really really unlikely as what they're betting on. 

"if rudy has a smoking gun case for mass fraud, which is more likely: 1) he would file it right away, win the case and this would be over, 2) he would tell you that he has something and keep stringing you along with it because people with a point always wait until the last second to actually prove it

If rudy wishes he had a smoking gun case, but is waiting and hoping to find something, which is more likely:
1) he would file it right away and fail showing he has nothing, or 2) above

It seems like it's more likely that he has nothing or he'd be filing it instead of talking about it". 

Now, if there are ten other guys just like Rudy saying the same thing - they're sitting on something that would blow this wide open, what are the chances that the first scenario is going on, but they all pick #2. 

Wouldn't the one of them who filed and won a case early on stand to gain something? perhaps writing a book, booking paid appearances, fame? How could all of them avoid that?

What's likely is often not convenient, and nobody likes to say "i'll wait and observe everything, and then see what I think the right answer is later". The people who do that are quiet and too busy observing to make a stink. It's nice to be right in the end even if you have to say "I don't know in the interim" and stick to "I think it's more likely that __ and in the absence of proof, I'm going to go with what's likely because that's generally how we get ahead as individuals on the long run....or at least how we avoid very foolish failure."


----------



## AJB Temple

By and large, my experience of life so far is once people have established a view, especially if expressed in a forum or similar, they will not change it. The respective sides remain polarised.


----------



## D_W

AJB Temple said:


> By and large, my experience of life so far is once people have established a view, especially if expressed in a forum or similar, they will not change it. The respective sides remain polarised.



You're far ahead of me if you've had better luck with people in real life. I have noticed face to face, people will stand and not object to something and then tell someone else you're an silly person later, even if it's because they believe something that's bonkers. 

I'm always open to being proven wrong. It's the benefit of being an independent. There's a term that I heard once - if what you observe generally conflicts with what you expect, then you have to change what you expect to what you observe. It went something like that. 

I've noticed other strange patterns (more in person):
* religious people who will say they're skeptical and will only believe what they can see with their own two eyes
* people who claim the latter from above, but tend to not believe what they see with their own two eyes, anyway

My parents are on both ends of the political spectrum (fairly far). They've convinced me to sit in the middle and observe instead. They don't think they've convinced me of that, they both think I don't know enough yet and when I do, I'll adopt their positions, but they've convinced me that observing and waiting to draw a conclusion is better. And anticipating what's likely (whether you like it or not) is a more reliable direction to go. 

Just as what the question above is (though I have no real dog in the fight on the answer to that one "if they could've stopped the protesters, why did they let them in? The likely answer is that they chose to. Now from what we've learned, that's the actual answer - they didn't send in reinforcements for 3 hours. Anyone with some curiosity will posit what they think is likely, check later to see whether or not they made a good guess, and accumulate mentally or otherwise what outcomes have been to calibrate anticipating the likely or rational. It sure is nice not to have to waste time on "knowing" something that you don't actually know and being willing to admit you don't know.)


----------



## dzj

A lot of people mentioning Kristallnacht these days. 
Time will tell what it was. Maybe it was a Reichstag fire.


----------



## RobinBHM

AJB Temple said:


> By and large, my experience of life so far is once people have established a view, especially if expressed in a forum or similar, they will not change it. The respective sides remain polarised.


Choice supportive bias.

As a person ages, regulating personal emotion becomes a higher priority, whereas knowledge acquisition becomes less of a powerful motive. Therefore, *choice*-*supportive bias would* arise because their focus was on how they felt about the *choice* rather than on the factual details of the *options*


----------



## D_W

dzj said:


> A lot of people mentioning Kristallnacht these days.
> Time will tell what it was. Maybe it was a Reichstag fire.



these people are as nuts as the rioters. 

What's really going on in the states ahead of the inauguration? 10-15k national guard troops are headed to the capitol.


----------



## Jameshow

D_W said:


> these people are as nuts as the rioters.
> 
> What's really going on in the states ahead of the inauguration? 10-15k national guard troops are headed to the capitol.



Who knows but I'd be going the other way!!! 

Cheers James


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> these people are as nuts as the rioters.
> 
> What's really going on in the states ahead of the inauguration? 10-15k national guard troops are headed to the capitol.



I hope they're not all Trump supporters.


----------



## D_W

Jameshow said:


> Who knows but I'd be going the other way!!!
> 
> Cheers James



It'll probably be a pretty safe place to go if you have admittance. But avoiding anything political in life doesn't really result in the "emptiness" that a lot of people think it will. It just requires folks find something else to get angry about if that's what they're really looking for. 

This response was predictable, though, and why I made the comment earlier that the idea that things would just shut down and we'd have a coup were goofy. The government didn't respond at all to the first rally as a calculated move. They'll prevent a second one.


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> these people are as nuts as the rioters.
> 
> What's really going on in the states ahead of the inauguration? 10-15k national guard troops are headed to the capitol.


Michael Moore's warnings could be on the mark. More stuff on the way but the forces of law and order will turn out, in a way which they conspicuously failed to do on the 6th








Republican attorneys general condemned over robocall that urged march to Capitol


Group distances itself from robocall sent by fundraising arm that encouraged Trump supporters to ‘call on Congress to stop the steal’




www.theguardian.com












Police brace for more extremist violence ahead of inauguration


An FBI bulletin released Monday warned that an armed extremist group is threatening to stage a 'huge uprising' should President Donald Trump be removed from office before January 20.




www.dailymail.co.uk












Michigan bans open carry of guns in state Capitol as FBI warns of violence


FBI bulletin reportedly details calls for ‘storming’ of buildings and courthouses if Trump is removed from power before inauguration




www.theguardian.com


----------



## NormanB

Arnie Schwarzenegger puts forward his view on theses recent events (and Trump) and I have to say, with the gravitas, credibility and even a bit of humour that Trump never achieved during all his time in office as POTUS - of course ARNIE can never be POTUS and is/has been a member of the Republican Party.

Link


----------



## D_W

You do realize that Michael Moore's job is to agitate you to get you to look at him. Or you don't realize that? I'd imagine since he's from Canada, the only reason that he's doing it here and not there is because you can make more money doing it here.


----------



## John Brown

D_W said:
"I'm outta this thread"


----------



## D_W

It depends on what the definition of outta is ......................(bites bottom lip).


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> The government didn't respond at all to the first rally as a calculated move.



Interesting theory, but it is not possible to square that with what Sund has been saying (with at least partial back up from the DC admin). Sounds more like either a screw up or sand in the cogs somewhere (which is basically what Sund is claiming). I do not think any one person's story should be taken as read when there is blame flying around to be deflected, but time and documents will out in the end. The suspensions and arrest of Capitol policemen is also interesting, implying that some of them were not following orders. Most fought like hell to keep the rioters out, which is also quite hard to square with your theory.


----------



## D_W

I saw a news story this morning that they claimed administrative slowness was the reason for the lack of a response. I think that's a pretty fantastic story given that this was going on in the capitol. What nobody there wants, and you're right, i'm guessing at it - is to have their name attached to the idea that they didn't want an immediate response and then were frozen while guessing whether or not it was a good time to send in additional officers at the risk of creating a deadlier fight. 

Not sure how many officers were at the capitol given the force there is 2300 according to google. 200? If 5 turn out to have not done their job in a middle of a mob, that's not exactly like the whole group stepping aside.


----------



## Mark Hancock

Strangely find some comfort from this Colin Powell Interview


----------



## Jacob

John Brown said:


> D_W said:
> "I'm outta this thread"


I think it was me! But point taken. How Necessary is a Specialised Scrub Plane?


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> You do realize that Michael Moore's job is to agitate you to get you to look at him. Or you don't realize that? I'd imagine since he's from Canada, the only reason that he's doing it here and not there is because you can make more money doing it here.


I suggest you follow his vid (he's quite entertaining and brings out the drama). Then compare/contrast what he said with events as they are panning out.
Interesting that Michigan is banning open carry of guns. This looks like a line in the sand and a direct challenge to the nutters.
They'll still carry them concealed presumably, which could mean a lot of people accidentally shooting themselves in the groin, in the traditional NRA manner.


----------



## billw

Guns is quite an emotive subject but I refer to this: -

"The Second Amendment was added because in order to maintain a free state the people must have the right to keep and bear arms, "armed citizens is what keeps the government honest." The people wanted the Amendment because no government would try to take over with armed citizens."

1. The people with guns are now trying to support a dishonest government.
2. Armed citizens with handguns and rifles versus the modern US military? That's going to last what? A few hours?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

billw said:


> Guns is quite an emotive subject but I refer to this: -
> 
> "The Second Amendment was added because in order to maintain a free state the people must have the right to keep and bear arms, "armed citizens is what keeps the government honest." The people wanted the Amendment because no government would try to take over with armed citizens."
> 
> 1. The people with guns are now trying to support a dishonest government.
> 2. Armed citizens with handguns and rifles versus the modern US military? That's going to last what? A few hours?


I agree with your point about the constitution: the founders were a bunch of revolutionary terrorists, except that they won. They created a system that they felt would be less likely to devolve back into tyranny (or their view of tyranny, at least), but even then the view was that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." The entire point of guns and the second amendment is that the guns should be available to use against a tyrannical government. It should concentrate the thinking, in other words.

About the "people with guns" supporting a "dishonest government" - as with all of this nonsense, there are facts, and there are alternative facts. The people claiming that the election was free and fair are the people who a) won the election and b) own all the media and big tech which push the narratives. 

If this really does come to shooting, Afghanistan will be the model. 20 years in, the USA is just about to declair victory and run away, so perhaps not the most effective army in the world.. Given the dependence on infrastructure in the USA, I can envisage the democrat cities being without power and water, and possibly food, within a very few days. It will be interesting to see how that goes. Personally, I think that some factions are doing their damndest to make a civil war happen, but I don't actually believe anyone really wants to do the fighting. In other words, this is all sound and fury, signifying nothing.


----------



## John Brown

Trainee neophyte said:


> The people claiming that the election was free and fair are the people who a) won the election and b) own all the media and big tech which push the narratives.


You are forgetting the republicans who won. They claim the election was free and fair in their constituencies. As far as I know, the democrats who lost have not been crying foul.


----------



## Jake

John Brown said:


> You are forgetting the republicans who won. They claim the election was free and fair in their constituencies. As far as I know, the democrats who lost have not been crying foul.



And a good swathe of the more honest/less cowed and pro-democracy parts of GOP haven't joined in the nonsense about the presidentials.


----------



## billw

Trainee neophyte said:


> as with all of this nonsense, there are facts, and there are alternative facts. The people claiming that the election was free and fair are the people who a) won the election and b) own all the media and big tech which push the narratives



There are no alternative facts. There are opinions about what happened, sure.


----------



## gregmcateer

"The people claiming that the election was free and fair are the people who a) won the election and b) own all the media and big tech which push the narratives. "

Fox News? And I seem to remember one Donald J Trump confirmed as President 4 years ago - was that election not free and fair?


----------



## Jake

billw said:


> There are no alternative facts.



But that's not the Putinist world-view (it's a lie of course).


----------



## gregmcateer

D_W said:


> You do realize that Michael Moore's job is to agitate you to get you to look at him. Or you don't realize that? I'd imagine since he's from Canada, the only reason that he's doing it here and not there is because you can make more money doing it here.



Not really relevant. He either has a point(s) or part of one/some, or doesn't. We are all chipping in and we're in the UK. Just as you have every right to comment on brexit or any other issue, origin or location is immaterial.


----------



## D_W

gregmcateer said:


> Not really relevant. He either has a point(s) or part of one/some, or doesn't. We are all chipping in and we're in the UK. Just as you have every right to comment on brexit or any other issue, origin or location is immaterial.



If I tried to set up a persona in England to agitate on Brexit (to get paid appearances, produce documentaries, etc), I'd expect you to discount my opinion when information in general is readily available. When the job of someone is agitating you or providing something to anticipate (that usually doesn't materialize), that reminds me of pro-wrestling promoters. I guess people like to react more than they like to observe and wait until later to see what happens. Not a fan.


----------



## D_W

Got a big chuckle this morning reading an article about the individuals arrested so far.....one of the guys dressed in a helmet with some other duds on (including some kind of airwing patch) was recognized by his ex-wife, who called in his identity.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jake said:


> But that's not the Putinist world-view (it's a lie of course).


There are two groups of people in the USA, as I understand it. One group believe that Trump won the election, and another group that believe Biden won the election. Both groups are having fun confirming their relative positions to themselves, and getting upset with the opposition. Useful facts will be promoted, unhelpful facts ignored or reviled as false, and perceived reality will continue on, for both sides, with no real exchange of information between the two. Business as usual, in other words. I'm pretty confident neither Putin nor Russia have much to do with it. They are managing to not communicate with each other extremely capably on their own.

It must be difficult going through life being perpetually scared of a man who can ride a horse bareback, without his shirt on. 

Did I say horse?


----------



## gregmcateer

D_W said:


> Got a big chuckle this morning reading an article about the individuals arrested so far.....one of the guys dressed in a helmet with some other duds on (including some kind of airwing patch) was recognized by his ex-wife, who called in his identity.



That's funny! Hell hath no fury, huh?


----------



## D_W

gregmcateer said:


> That's funny! Hell hath no fury, huh?



meme-worthy. The quote from the ex-wife was something along the lines of "when I heard about this, I knew it's something he'd go do". Not 100% clear that she intentionally looked for him in footage, but sounds kind of like that!


----------



## Essex Barn Workshop

Can I make two points? Not having read all 17 pages please excuse me any duplication:
1) Bill Clinton was alone with Monika Lewinsky. No observers, no cameras yet the while world knows what happened in that secure room. Is it even possible that any large scale fraud wouldn't have been found out?
2) How utterly predictable that now some (I accept only some) republican Trump supporters now believe that the Capital invasion was by infiltrating ANTIFA people, and not Trump supporters.


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> If I tried to set up a persona in England to agitate on Brexit (to get paid appearances, produce documentaries, etc), I'd expect you to discount my opinion when information in general is readily available. When the job of someone is agitating you or providing something to anticipate (that usually doesn't materialize), that reminds me of pro-wrestling promoters. I guess people like to react more than they like to observe and wait until later to see what happens. Not a fan.


You OK with Fox News then? n.b. what he agitates about in that vid seems to be materialising fairly fast. Don't have to be a fan to notice it.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

Essex Barn Workshop said:


> Can I make two points? Not having read all 17 pages please excuse me any duplication:
> 1) Bill Clinton was alone with Monika Lewinsky. No observers, no cameras yet the while world knows what happened in that secure room. Is it even possible that any large scale fraud wouldn't have been found out?
> 2) How utterly predictable that now some (I accept only some) republican Trump supporters now believe that the Capital invasion was by infiltrating ANTIFA people, and not Trump supporters.


I suppose the answer to 1) depends on whether anyone was wearing a LBD.......


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> You OK with Fox News then?



Absolutely not. The last time I saw fox news or MSNBC or anything like that without being somewhere that it was on TV (generally my parents or inlaws) was perhaps 2003. I don't know if there was an MSNBC back then, but there was CNN and cspan and F-N was the only pundit channel aside from the obvious liberal bias to news in general (registration in the US for news professionals is about 88% democrat -you can adjust for that). 

When MSNBC came along or was at least popularized, it was a disappointment, and when CNN determined they would become a commentary channel instead of news, again, a disappointment. It just signaled that that type of commentary posing as news has become market dominant across the board. They're all tabloids at this point.


----------



## Jacob

and thus spake Michael Moore: "it shall come to pass.......etc" 
Authorities on high alert across US as fears over far-right violence intensify
He does seem to be quickest off the mark!


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> and thus spake Michael Moore: "it shall come to pass.......etc"
> Authorities on high alert across US as fears over far-right violence intensify
> He does seem to be quickest off the mark!



I'll bet my prediction is more accurate, and I actually speculated something that would happen and not might (aside from my first comment that the crowd only got in the capitol because someone decided it was a better idea than starting a bigger confrontation. That turns out to be true, regardless of the reason they were allowed in). 

My prediction was also that they'd staff up and the inauguration would occur as scheduled (it will) and in the long term, this will blow over (that'll take longer to materialize). 

That doesn't stoke fear, which tends to not be very popular from pundits, because it gives people no reason to tune in later. You may not understand what I mean by that, but it's straight from the book of fire and brimstone pastors and professional wrestling promoters.


----------



## billw

@D_W maybe I should put a few quid on there being a President McMahon


----------



## mikej460

D_W said:


> I'll bet my prediction is more accurate, and I actually speculated something that would happen and not might (aside from my first comment that the crowd only got in the capitol because someone decided it was a better idea than starting a bigger confrontation. That turns out to be true, regardless of the reason they were allowed in).
> 
> My prediction was also that they'd staff up and the inauguration would occur as scheduled (it will) and in the long term, this will blow over (that'll take longer to materialize).
> 
> That doesn't stoke fear, which tends to not be very popular from pundits, because it gives people no reason to tune in later. You may not understand what I mean by that, but it's straight from the book of fire and brimstone pastors and professional wrestling promoters.


I think it gives terrorists, domestic and foreign, confidence on just how easy it was to get in or even close enough especially as the authorities had known for weeks it was likely.


----------



## Jacob

I keep having to google things to find out what they mean. One minute it's LBD (!) next it's McMahon.
Vince or Linda for president? She'd be more scary in a LBD.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> @D_W maybe I should put a few quid on there being a President McMahon



Free TRT for everyone and required heavy lifting under PPACA!


----------



## selectortone

Trainee neophyte said:


> It must be difficult going through life being perpetually scared of a man who can ride a horse bareback, without his shirt on.
> 
> Did I say horse?



The lady doth protest too much, methinks


----------



## D_W

mikej460 said:


> I think it gives terrorists, domestic and foreign, confidence on just how easy it was to get in or even close enough especially as the authorities had known for weeks it was likely.



I think most of the people going into the capitol were unarmed. If an armed group on display went to the steps, I don't think the response would be as gentle. 

As far as access, yes - I think security for the president is at a level that is not given for most other politicians. I don't know why that is, but I don't think there's any notion that it's that difficult for people to get in as protests against PPACA, disabled benefits, kavanaugh, etc, have all gone wherever they wanted and got arrested later. What has been interesting even in those is that when a nutball shows up yelling about whatever their cause is, the response is not really that quick. Why that is, I don't know, as inside the capitol there must be hundreds of armed officers. 

When the kavanaugh hearings were going on, I saw a few snips of protestors, and my thought is that if I were in charge of the building, response would be instant. It wouldn't have to be nasty or overly violent, just instant to dissuade people from thinking that they can just go in and start yelling. 

Never toured any of the branches of government, so no clue what they do to check over tour groups above and beyond metal detectors.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> I keep having to google things to find out what they mean. One minute it's LBD (!) next it's McMahon.
> Vince or Linda for president? She'd be more scary in a LBD.



Clue me in on LBD - LBD is the acronym used here for a type of dementia.


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> Clue me in on LBD - LBD is the acronym used here for a type of dementia.



Little Black Dress


----------



## D_W

That wouldn't have been my first guess for someone age 72, but I guess it depends on what lens you're looking through.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> Not sure how many officers were at the capitol given the force there is 2300 according to google. 200? If 5 turn out to have not done their job in a middle of a mob, that's not exactly like the whole group stepping aside.



1400 Capitol police according to a WaPo article today, unspecified number of DC police (58 injured) who were the first reinforcements on scene. What it doesn't say is when they all arrived, but Sund has implied that Capitol police were fully deployed after the rally permit limit was raised from 5k to 30k attendees.

Tiny minority reportedly being looked at, like 10-15. The point I was making isn't that there was widespread siding with the rioters/insurrectionists but that people are being investigated for disciplinary offences in relation to not stopping them. No talk of disciplining the far greater number who did the opposite and fought really hard to keep them out. This suggests the orders were not to let them in.

I see the DOJ have said they are looking at charges of sedition.


----------



## D_W

I think you're missing the point here. You can't give the police orders to ignore the laws - well, it does happen in some cases here like when sheriffs inform the public that there is a law on the book, but they won't be enforcing it. The reality is no real attempt was made to stop the group from entering or to try to match up to them with a greater force. If the same permit was filed again, a much larger force would oppose them. 

Are you following what I'm saying? The individual officers still have to do their job, but if you don't staff them up further (until far later), you're avoiding escalating the conflict. 

Contrast this with calling in the national guard on the 6th or 8th day of the BLM protests when the supposition was that they'd be heading to the capitol. 

The account I read on another forum (haven't been back to it since) more or less said that they walked up to the entrance and said "we're unarmed and we're coming in and you're not going to stop us". He said there wasn't that much police resistance initially where he was. He was also on the side where the woman was shot and despite the initial reports, stated something along the lines of she was in the line of fire but not doing anything aggressive. I only read one paragraph post by him (I guess all of his social media and live streaming, etc was taken down, and it sounds like the police took everyones' phones, which is probably policy to avoid lawsuits if possible. If the police take your phones and erase them and later say "oops, looks like we were in the wrong", there's no real recourse). 

I haven't seen a total estimate of the crowd - have you read? The permit size you mention is the first I saw of it. Early on someone said 100k, which couldn't have been right. Even if it's 30k, if the whole group decides they're headed for the door, the only thing you can do as officers to stop them is start shooting. It sounds like when the lady who got shot did get shot, everyone on that side of the group had a change of heart pretty quickly.


----------



## D_W

(personally, I think running up against law enforcement in the US is dumb, regardless of the circumstance. They have special legal standing, and the prosecutor's offices need their backing to make cases. Prosecutorial offices are quasi political, or in some larger jurisdictions - outright political. 

There's plenty of evidence that when you make police nervous, people get shot. I wouldn't want to beat those people. 

But before any of that, I didn't vote in the last election, so I'd have had no excuse to go complain about the results. I'm pretty satisfied for them, and I think Biden is the guy for the situation - a moderate who is pretty mild and reasonable. )


----------



## harryc

I wonder if Mitch McConnell will eventually grow a spine.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> I think you're missing the point here. You can't give the police orders to ignore the laws - well, it does happen in some cases here like when sheriffs inform the public that there is a law on the book, but they won't be enforcing it. The reality is no real attempt was made to stop the group from entering or to try to match up to them with a greater force. If the same permit was filed again, a much larger force would oppose them.



There was a huge attempt from most officers. There's a mass of video evidence of the barrage they took trying to stop the rioter/insurrectionists getting in.



> Are you following what I'm saying? The individual officers still have to do their job, but if you don't staff them up further (until far later), you're avoiding escalating the conflict.



Really not how this panned out on the most part (one door seems to have been a notable exception). 



> Contrast this with calling in the national guard on the 6th or 8th day of the BLM protests when the supposition was that they'd be heading to the capitol.



By Sund's account, he wanted National Guard once the rally limit expanded but the heads of security for both houses (both also resigned) said they did not want National Guard there because it would look bad. Chief of the relevant National Guard has said they repeatedly offered their support and were declined by Sund. 



> The account I read on another forum (haven't been back to it since) more or less said that they walked up to the entrance and said "we're unarmed and we're coming in and you're not going to stop us". He said there wasn't that much police resistance initially where he was.



There was at least one door where the police stood to either side of the corridor leading from the door, with one of them saying fairly unconvincingly 'no you can't come in' as the rioters all file past them. That was anything but typical though. 



> He was also on the side where the woman was shot and despite the initial reports, stated something along the lines of she was in the line of fire but not doing anything aggressive.



She was the first person to try to climb through the hole left after the people she was with had smashed glass in a door leading directly to the Speaker's lobby of the House. There are two videos around, one timed 3 minutes before showing many Reps in the Speaker's lobby lined on their way to their emergency hidey hole, the other of Babbitt being shot trying to get into that inner area. She got shot because it was the last line of defence.



> I only read one paragraph post by him (I guess all of his social media and live streaming, etc was taken down, and it sounds like the police took everyones' phones, which is probably policy to avoid lawsuits if possible. If the police take your phones and erase them and later say "oops, looks like we were in the wrong", there's no real recourse).



There's an immense amount of video around. Loads of good work being put in to identify the cretins (and the FBI are encouraging that). Much of it by the good sort of anti-fascist (ie the ones who do what it says on the tin, rather than violent revolutionary anarchist/syndicalist/communist minority).



> I haven't seen a total estimate of the crowd - have you read? The permit size you mention is the first I saw of it. Early on someone said 100k, which couldn't have been right. Even if it's 30k, if the whole group decides they're headed for the door, the only thing you can do as officers to stop them is start shooting. It sounds like when the lady who got shot did get shot, everyone on that side of the group had a change of heart pretty quickly.



It was a 30k max permit. I don't think there were anything like that number of rioters/insurrectionists. Crowd sizes are notoriously impossible to estimate accurately, but the 5-10k range seems to get mentioned a lot by ex-LE types.


----------



## Jake

harryc said:


> I wonder if Mitch McConnell will eventually grow a spine.



The reported quotes tonight from 'friends' are interesting.


----------



## D_W

> By Sund's account, he wanted National Guard once the rally limit expanded but the heads of security for both houses (both also resigned) said they did not want National Guard there because it would look bad. Chief of the relevant National Guard has said they repeatedly offered their support and were declined by Sund.



I said earlier they didn't want to have a big opposition because of how it would look if they did show significant force and use it. I have no idea how this is different.

Imagine if you were sending an infantry to battle and you said "we're going to try to win this war. We're sending 1 guy in for every 20 of theirs, but believe us, we're really trying here".


----------



## Jake

Set out to fail is a theory which takes you into questions about who and why. It's possible. Your's I understood originally to be more like the cops on the ground basically invited them in (along the lines of that one door) and actively did not try to resist entry, as opposed to people in command setting the guys on the ground up to fail. I agree the latter seems more likely, sand in the cogs etc.

I see DOJ is looking at sedition charges for insurrectionists.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Set out to fail is a theory which takes you into questions about who and why. It's possible. Your's I understood originally to be more like the cops on the ground basically invited them in (along the lines of that one door) and actively did not try to resist entry, as opposed to people in command setting the guys on the ground to fail. I agree the latter seems more likely, sand in the cogs etc.
> 
> I see DOJ is looking at sedition charges for insurrectionists.



it's a simple answer to me. Someone made a bad decision because they figured "they're not all coming in here, are they? If we had national guard on the steps, it could cause a fight or they'll just take pictures and post propaganda about it". 

Apparently, at least if the account from the only person I've ever seen post anywhere (I don't know the guy well, but have never noticed him to be dishonest or indulge in gossip), they met no resistance at the door. It sounds like they met resistance later. 

I'll bet half the group of people who went into the capitol is now thinking it wasn't as good of an idea as they thought it would be while they were there. 

GOP is shedding registered voters like crazy right now.


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> Set out to fail is a theory which takes you into questions about who and why. It's possible. Your's I understood originally to be more like the cops on the ground basically invited them in (along the lines of that one door) and actively did not try to resist entry, as opposed to people in command setting the guys on the ground up to fail. I agree the latter seems more likely, sand in the cogs etc.
> 
> I see DOJ is looking at sedition charges for insurrectionists.



To be quicker and shorter about what I said above, I don't think they set out to fail. I think they set out to not look bad, and that led to failure. I think in the middle of it, they set out not to have a response that looked bad. Several hours later, they finally did something about it. Why did they wait that long? I don't know. 

Learned something else - if you're at risk for stroke or heart attack, maybe don't go to rallies that turn into screaming people sandwiches.


----------



## TRITON

Im having a good laugh at the excuses coming out from those thus far arrested.

" I didnt force my way in, the crowd pushed me in " I didn't bring zip tie handcuffs, I found them lying on the floor I wans going to hand them to a policeman...". "The riot shield and bulletproof vest arent mine, I found them".
Honest Guv...

I was just holding the lectern for someone else......

Incidentally, that retired Lieutenant colonel who had those zip tie handcuffs. I can see that he wanted to be in charge of things if prisoners were taken. He'd likely announce his previous rank and try to set himself up as some sort of leader.

Scary scary people.


----------



## Jake

Did you see the vid of the girl saying she had come for the revolution and they maced me?

edit: 

It's just genius comedy, I still wonder if it is a set up but it really doesn't come across like it.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> I don't think they set out to fail. I think they set out to not look bad, and that led to failure. I think in the middle of it, they set out not to have a response that looked bad. Several hours later, they finally did something about it. Why did they wait that long? I don't know.



That's plausible. There's a lot of the story still to come out I think. We have certain viewpoints from a few of the actors, but hardly comprehensive and none of it reconciled with documentary trail that tends to straighten things out somewhat. A lot of fingerpointing going on.


----------



## D_W

I think it'll take a documentarian and archivist to get enough survey information to piece together the likely truth. 

The trouble with political things is that they're like legal defenses. Something occurs. The best sounding answers are overlaid later. Which means anything that's possible could be overlaid to save face vs. what's likely (or much more importantly, a complete unbiased accounting of the truth). 

I personally would rather see someone stand up and say "we made a decision to do it this way, we didn't think it would get out of hand, and we thought it would look better if we didn't have a more ominous presence meeting the protesters". 

(of course "would look better" would at least be varnished with "would be more fair to the citizens of this great country" or some such thing). 

If you think about what the reaction to things is, if you said that, someone would immediately call for resignations. If you instead say "we just need to work on our protocols, we tried, but they didn't work fast enough", people will say "those protocols need to change!!" (and a few cynics like me will say, yeah, OK. protocols. did you ever fail to get to the toilet because the poop protocol was too long?")


----------



## TRITON

billw said:


> Guns is quite an emotive subject but I refer to this: -
> 
> "The Second Amendment was added because in order to maintain a free state the people must have the right to keep and bear arms, "armed citizens is what keeps the government honest." The people wanted the Amendment because no government would try to take over with armed citizens."
> 
> 1. The people with guns are now trying to support a dishonest government.
> 2. Armed citizens with handguns and rifles versus the modern US military? That's going to last what? A few hours?


I've been reading some of the US military forums over what the military thought about the riots and invasion and most are clear that these who forced their way in are traitors.
Whether they would fire upon armed civilians is a completely different matter, not sure they would.

Trump has really caused mayhem, and if it ends up in many people being killed, he's going to have answer personally.

Republicans are conservatives, much like the tories we have.
I dont like the tories but I'd never attack them or act violently towards them or their supporters.

Look at brexit. We lost, but nobody is talking about armed revolt. I think it is a bad idea and leaves us(Britain) in a poor position, but the majority voted leave, so leave it is, whether i agree or not i stand by the result.
At the same time i understand that Britain has always stood alone, it is one of the defining features of being British and has shaped the country and given it it's standing throughout it's history.
All we can do is wait and work and build on whatever brexit gives us.

It is what democracy is all about. Disagree or not, the result is the result and that's the end of it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jake said:


> I see the DOJ have said they are looking at charges of sedition


At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?

If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.

Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?

Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?


----------



## TRITON

Trainee neophyte said:


> At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?
> 
> If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.
> 
> Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?
> 
> Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?



er....
The Kavanough hearings cannot be compared and to attempt to is just bloody ridiculous.
" The protesters at those _hearings_—most of them women, many ... such as shouting out from the gallery, “_Kavanaugh_ can't be trusted! "
You think shouting protests is the same as an armed insurrection, a mob with murder on its mind.

Watch this ? Certainly doesnt suggest the Democrats are stoking the fires of discontent. But it does imply what the US judicial should do with those who attempted to overthrow the legitimate government, by violent armed insurrection.


----------



## harryc

Since when can you move on without bringing to charge those who are accountable for the 5 deaths, a police officer doing his job was violently beaten to death!
Maybe in a banana republic but Without justice there is no healing something that the lunatics in the GOP are suddenly so keen on.


----------



## gregmcateer

Trainee neophyte said:


> At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?
> 
> If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.
> 
> Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?
> 
> Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?



Not 100% sure they are proposing pogroms or education camps, but maybe I missed that.

I agree that building bridges is better. The problem is that, excepting the civilised and thoughtful DW on here, the American way with justice is very much about punishment - just look at the size of their prison industry. 
Trump is utterly faultless in his eyes, which is hardly surprising if you read any books he's "written" or read/watch any proper journalistic analysis of his upbringing and past behaviour. He is pyschologically incapable of seeing any responsibility or fault in ANYTHING he does which doesn't go well. Take his recent "greatest witchhunt in the history of the US". Already he has forgotten the election fraud witchhunt he has been stoking.

The guy is an eejit. Moving on and building bridges can work between the two parties, but until he is truly out of contention, he will not be able to just shut up and move on without stoking more hatred.

Now even Liz Cheney has come out against him. And we all know the Cheney approach to truth and reconciliation


----------



## billw

The American public need to move on, but Trump's political career and ability to continue to influence huge swathes of the population with absolute bullcack has got to be dealt with. Without dealing with the problem at source it's going to continue to cause issues.

_“His father trained him to see the world only as winners and losers, and he’s never going to acknowledge he’s a loser,” O’Brien said. “He has no remorse and no regret about any of it. It’s what makes him such a damaged and damaging man. He doesn’t have any of the minimal guilt or regret that a healthy, stable individual has.”_


----------



## Jacob

gregmcateer said:


> .... the American way with justice is very much about punishment - just look at the size of their prison industry.
> ....


USA prison industry is a continuation of slavery.








Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org




.


----------



## Woody2Shoes

D_W said:


> Clue me in on LBD - LBD is the acronym used here for a type of dementia.


I think you're revealing a bit about your social milieu !


----------



## gregmcateer

TRITON said:


> er....
> The Kavanough hearings cannot be compared and to attempt to is just bloody ridiculous.
> " The protesters at those _hearings_—most of them women, many ... such as shouting out from the gallery, “_Kavanaugh_ can't be trusted! "
> You think shouting protests is the same as an armed insurrection, a mob with murder on its mind.
> 
> Watch this ? Certainly doesnt suggest the Democrats are stoking the fires of discontent. But it does imply what the US judicial should do with those who attempted to overthrow the legitimate government, by violent armed insurrection.




The video is amusingly done about a serious subject - ain't gonna convince any hard line GOP, I doubt. Though the interview with James Comey that comes up afterwards is steady and serious. Comey isn't some far left fruit loop, he's a full on conservative establishment guy. BUT he questioned the Orange One, so had to go. Interesting to hear his comments about the current FBI Director.


----------



## NormanB

Trainee neophyte said:


> At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?
> 
> If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.
> 
> Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?
> 
> Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?


I do not think Biden is making the atmosphere worse and I do not think you can build bridges will those harbouring irrational hate.

Chamberlain thought he was building bridges with Hitler. There is much of Trump that has the ingredients of ‘a despotic leader’.


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> Since when can you move on without bringing to charge those who are accountable for the 5 deaths, a police officer doing his job was violently beaten to death!
> Maybe in a banana republic but Without justice there is no healing something that the lunatics in the GOP are suddenly so keen on.



Three. One policeman, one woman shot by police, and two trampled. Not sure how you'd charge someone for the two who died of heart attack and stroke. 

Also not sure how you think anyone isn't being charged. The arrest rate so far is about a hundred or thousand times higher than the blm riots.


----------



## D_W

Comey is not trustworthy, and neither is trump. Among cosa nostra here, comey is widely hated because he would fabricate cases often to put away guys he couldn't legitimately catch. This is with a group where some of the guys now are good friends with honest investigators who caught them. I wouldn't hang your hat on anything comey or Trump says.


----------



## harryc

When did the BLM movement ever try and over throw the govt?

Not even sure why you are comparing the two!

One a movement wanting the rights of all people to be observed and the other a white supremacist and conspiracy led nut case mob.


----------



## rafezetter

Jacob said:


> USA prison industry is a continuation of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Penal labor in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Yeah but you still gotta do bad stuff to get there, or be very stupid 3 times, so try not to cry too much for them compared to being in a Thai prison eh?


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> When did the BLM movement ever try and over throw the govt?
> 
> Not even sure why you are comparing the two!
> 
> One a movement wanting the rights of all people to be observed and the other a white supremacist and conspiracy led nut case mob.



If these guys were trying to "overthrow" the government, staying in a building for 3 hours wasn't a very good way to do it. 

You're missing the point. Both movements think they have a point. I think BLM's is valid, but the rioting that occurred afterwards with self-justified looting, shooting police, etc, is something you're glossing over. You can tell me those were small issues, but my neighbor - literally across the street - was knocked to the ground and kicked by BLM fanatics at a rally because he was taking footage for the news station. He wasn't "in the middle of it", rather members of the group ran up to him and accosted him. 

What did he do that people didn't like? He as filming a group vandalizing police cars (if a cameraman is at an event, of course, they're going to film that). 

The parts of this group that got violent should be charged, and the parts who trespassed should be charged. That didn't really happen much with the BLM group.


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> Yeah but you still gotta do bad stuff to get there, or be very stupid 3 times, so try not to cry too much for them compared to being in a Thai prison eh?



There aren't too many people in US prisons who are totally innocent, but there's definitely people who made bad choices and wouldn't make the same one a second time. I'm guessing that it's a little easier to be a prisoner here than it is in some places, but not in others. Central America, Russia, China, etc, are probably all worse. Being a political prisoner in china wouldn't be very promising. 

I'd imagine that being on law enforcement and prosecutorial to-do lists in most places is a bad idea.


----------



## Jacob

rafezetter said:


> Yeah but you still gotta do bad stuff to get there, or be very stupid 3 times, so try not to cry too much for them compared to being in a Thai prison eh?


Actually it's not that simple. Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery (Published 2019)
".....The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on Earth: We represent 4 percent of the planet’s population but 22 percent of its imprisoned...."


----------



## harryc

@D_W
Your last sentence gives away your thought process and the issues you have in your country.


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> Your last sentence gives away your thought process and the issues you have in your country.



>>I'd imagine that being on law enforcement and prosecutorial to-do lists in most places is a bad idea.<<

That line? You're seeing things through a rosy lens. I like the police. When we have stupid movements like "Defund the police" I don't agree with any of that. Aside from that, the police do a lot of outreach here to generate informing and to be trusted, but the legal view in general is there is a chance that if you bring the police or legal system in on a simple matter, you can end up in trouble wrongly. Even for honest reasons. 

I'm sure this kind of thing never happens in other countries. 








Millions spent compensating wrongful convictions


More than £9m has been paid in compensation to 16 people who had their criminal convictions overturned.



www.bbc.com





Having simplistic views is easy. Having two part views is almost as easy, and a lot smarter. That is:
1) appreciating the peace that exists due to the rule of law
2) not wanting to get tangled up in any of it personally


----------



## rafezetter

Jacob said:


> Actually it's not that simple. Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery (Published 2019)
> ".....The United States has the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on Earth: We represent 4 percent of the planet’s population but 22 percent of its imprisoned...."



That doesn't answer anything Jacob - you seem to writing from a standpoint that wholly innocent people are being dragged off the streets and incarcerated - please refer to my previous post, 99.9% earned thier fate, one way or another.

The US judiciary system just isn't that corrupt, not even when you take ehtnic minorities into account as the highest proportion of population.


----------



## Jacob

rafezetter said:


> .....The US judiciary system just isn't that corrupt, not even when you take ehtnic minorities into account as the highest proportion of population.


They are not though. "....As of July 2016, White Americans are the racial majority. Hispanic and Latino Americans are the largest ethnic minority, comprising an estimated 18% of the population. African Americans are the second largest racial minority, comprising an estimated 13.4% of the population...."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...016, White,estimated 13.4% of the population.


> ... 99.9% earned their fate, one way or another.
> .......


Would that include slavery itself? Do you have any references backing up this astonishingly large and precise figure? Is the American justice system really so infallible?


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> That doesn't answer anything Jacob - you seem to writing from a standpoint that wholly innocent people are being dragged off the streets and incarcerated - please refer to my previous post, 99.9% earned thier fate, one way or another.
> 
> The US judiciary system just isn't that corrupt, not even when you take ehtnic minorities into account as the highest proportion of population.



We have the financial means to incarcerate, I guess. And a large enough economy to invite a variety of crimes.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Would that include slavery itself? Do you have any references backing up this astonishingly large and precise figure? Is the American justice system so infallible?



Perhaps you could find some illustration of wrongful convictions, like the rate here. In my opinion, the laws (which surprisingly are in a liberal state) such as "three strikes and you're out" are stupid. Most first offenders in the US get off pretty easily. Not all, but most. If you live in an area and appear before a judge 3 times over 10 years, though, you're not doing yourself any favors.


----------



## harryc

D_W said:


> >>I'd imagine that being on law enforcement and prosecutorial to-do lists in most places is a bad idea.<<
> 
> That line? You're seeing things through a rosy lens. I like the police. When we have stupid movements like "Defund the police" I don't agree with any of that. Aside from that, the police do a lot of outreach here to generate informing and to be trusted, but the legal view in general is there is a chance that if you bring the police or legal system in on a simple matter, you can end up in trouble wrongly. Even for honest reasons.
> 
> I'm sure this kind of thing never happens in other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions spent compensating wrongful convictions
> 
> 
> More than £9m has been paid in compensation to 16 people who had their criminal convictions overturned.
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having simplistic views is easy. Having two part views is almost as easy, and a lot smarter. That is:
> 1) appreciating the peace that exists due to the rule of law
> 2) not wanting to get tangled up in any of it personally



For sure we have racists in the British police force and military but none as far as I know have ever been implicated in trying to overthrow or govt by trying to storm parliament.

We have had major enquires after riots and the police handling of racist murders that have shown the police to be institutionally racist and hence there has been a major effort to root out such issues, not completely successful but still ongoing.

In comparison the police in America still seem to think they have to enforce the Jim Crow laws.

Wouldnt surprise me if most were Trumpsters.


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> In comparison the police in America still seem to think they have to enforce the Jim Crow laws.
> 
> Wouldnt surprise me if most were Trumpsters.



This is an uneducated opinion based mostly on opinion pieces and cherry picked news. I'd imagine that if you went through the rioters and put them on a lie detector test and asked them why they were there, most were dopey enough to believe the election was stolen by fraud. I doubt many have an intent to eliminate the electoral system as it is or overturn accurate results. 

It's pretty easy to make fantastic statements about institutional racism or "jim crow" laws if you never actually meet any officers in the US, or know any. My only unpleasant experiences with police have been riding a bike on a sidewalk as a kid, and getting a ticket from a misguided officer when I rode a bicycle through a stop sign in a park. The officer figured he'd give me a lecture on safety, then wrote me a ticket with an automobile code and refused to revise the ticket later (I had to go to a legislative subcommittee here to get it corrected). I'm sure there are racist people in your police departments, and I"m sure there are in ours. I'm also certain that there isn't a majority club in them who plays cards and decides what racist things they'll do - it's a minority of the officers. 

To pretend that the rank and file officers in any country won't have issues with racism (the latter is the child of the UK and Europe, though - rates are double in both for the latter vs. here) or patterning based on what they see day to day at work is kind of goofy considering the problem exists in the general population. And where are officers hired from? Last I checked, they're actually people. 

By the way, the county officer who arrested me was black, and I'm white as a sheet. Am I to believe he's racist? Of course not, that's absurd. He just was having a good time at my expense and didn't know the state code regarding bicycle traffic - which is really odd given the job pays well here and his patrol area is a park where people are exercising and constantly riding bicycles. He put his hands on his hips and gave me the full R. Lee Ermey treatment finally ending with "this is all for your safety". I wouldn't remember much of it if it hadn't been so much work to undo the ticket (and get a bicycle infraction removed from my driving record, as the automated documenting of the incident was "careless driving" based on the code the officer used. That code is used in this state for people who get caught falling asleep at the wheel while moving, and the insurer database picks that up automatically. Thanks, Officer Sid. "once we file the ticket, it's out of our hands. You have to go through the D.O.T.", who responded "the only way to get the ticket fixed is to have the issuing department file a correction" endless loop. 

Illustrating what I said earlier - you can like the police and the safety that they provide (and nobody should kid themselves that they'd be safer without them), but avoiding dealing with them day to day is good policy. Committing crimes, getting caught and then complaining about unequal treatment isn't a smart policy.


----------



## harryc

D_W said:


> This is an uneducated opinion based mostly on opinion pieces and cherry picked news. I'd imagine that if you went through the rioters and put them on a lie detector test and asked them why they were there, most were dopey enough to believe the election was stolen by fraud. I doubt many have an intent to eliminate the electoral system as it is or overturn accurate results.
> 
> It's pretty easy to make fantastic statements about institutional racism or "jim crow" laws if you never actually meet any officers in the US, or know any. My only unpleasant experiences with police have been riding a bike on a sidewalk as a kid, and getting a ticket from a misguided officer when I rode a bicycle through a stop sign in a park. The officer figured he'd give me a lecture on safety, then wrote me a ticket with an automobile code and refused to revise the ticket later (I had to go to a legislative subcommittee here to get it corrected). I'm sure there are racist people in your police departments, and I"m sure there are in ours. I'm also certain that there isn't a majority club in them who plays cards and decides what racist things they'll do - it's a minority of the officers.
> 
> To pretend that the rank and file officers in any country won't have issues with racism (the latter is the child of the UK and Europe, though - rates are double in both for the latter vs. here) or patterning based on what they see day to day at work is kind of goofy considering the problem exists in the general population. And where are officers hired from? Last I checked, they're actually people.
> 
> By the way, the county officer who arrested me was black, and I'm white as a sheet. Am I to believe he's racist? Of course not, that's absurd. He just was having a good time at my expense and didn't know the state code regarding bicycle traffic - which is really odd given the job pays well here and his patrol area is a park where people are exercising and constantly riding bicycles. He put his hands on his hips and gave me the full R. Lee Ermey treatment finally ending with "this is all for your safety". I wouldn't remember much of it if it hadn't been so much work to undo the ticket (and get a bicycle infraction removed from my driving record, as the automated documenting of the incident was "careless driving" based on the code the officer used. That code is used in this state for people who get caught falling asleep at the wheel while moving, and the insurer database picks that up automatically. Thanks, Officer Sid. "once we file the ticket, it's out of our hands. You have to go through the D.O.T.", who responded "the only way to get the ticket fixed is to have the issuing department file a correction" endless loop.
> 
> Illustrating what I said earlier - you can like the police and the safety that they provide (and nobody should kid themselves that they'd be safer without them), but avoiding dealing with them day to day is good policy. Committing crimes, getting caught and then complaining about unequal treatment isn't a smart policy.



You are clearly unwilling to accept the inherent racism in your police force although to be fair it is endemic throughout most governmental structures.

No point debating anymore but I will remind you once the congressional enquires show how high level this whole sedition campaign was orchestrated from and the numbers of security involved.


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> You are clearly unwilling to accept the inherent racism in your police force although to be fair it is endemic throughout most governmental structures.
> 
> No point debating anymore but I will remind you once the congressional enquires show how high level this whole sedition campaign was orchestrated from and the numbers of security involved.



Fantastic stories you tell. I think the racism in the police departments is a reflection of about what it is in society. It doesn't explain the entire imbalance in crime and incarceration, which is a correlation and not causation issue. The areas where crime is higher per capita are urban and poor rural areas. Poor rural tends to be what you guys may recognize as redneck (but you can't leave anything out in your yard for a second in places like that, and when you go to work, fair chance someone will eventually break into your house or garage and lift things). 

What people have a lot of difficulty with is differentiating race and correlation from race and causation. And usually once that's grasped, then the blame is placed elsewhere, which I'm assuming you're a big fan of. 

The problem is more complicated than just "they're racist and I'm not" or some other such thing. I'm sure you are faultless in this, though, and have been your entire life, as most finger-pointers tend to go that route. 

I have gotten racially profiled by police once - and it was driving in DC. I don't know that anything in England could compare to parts of baltimore or DC. A friend and I got pulled over because we're white. The officer probably suspected we were looking for drugs or prostitutes, but we were lost (this was in the late 1990s, before GPS). It didn't take him long to figure out that we weren't locals and we were just lost, and the said "OK, follow me" and we trailed him back to a recognizable area. My college buddy is from north of detroit and I'm from central PA. we had no clue where we were, but being naive as I am, I figured it didn't matter - nobody will do anything. The officer that pulled me over wasn't white. I think we'd have been fine, but I guess he didn't (or maybe he was looking to bust johns, I don't know). 

Reality is inconvenient for idealists and people who are problem solvers trying to fix things incrementally often get accused of being something they aren't. When's the last time an idealist actually fixed a problem all at once?

You're so far in the weeds that you think the people who headed to the capitol are convinced the election was fair, but they're overturning it, anyway. There may have been a small minority like that, but I seriously doubt it about the rest. This is the united states. I'd bet 90% of the group or greater owns firearms, yet only a couple of nutballs actually brought them. DC isn't the place to push limits on open carry or concealed carry, etc. If you think this group was headed to take over the country, forgot their guns and left in three hours, you have more faith than most fundamentalists.


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> ..... Committing crimes, getting caught and then complaining about unequal treatment isn't a smart policy.


Unless there _is_ unequal treatment of course. When did unequal treatment stop in the USA?


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Unless there _is_ unequal treatment of course. When did unequal treatment stop in the USA?



Here's the reality part that you may have difficulty with, Jacob. The system is a combination of a real numerical difference along with unfair treatment on top of it. The trouble with idealists is they tend to pick one or the other and argue that the second point not convenient to them doesn't exist. 

I don't do that. You assumed that I do, but you would be wrong. I am a problem solver for a living, but problems like encouraging or mandating cultural change to change the correlation is something that I would never attempt to wade through. It's not simple, and neither will be the transition. 

Anyone wanting to recognize one side of the problem while ignoring the other is doomed to failure.


----------



## TRITON

Settle down now ladies 

Although to add fuel to the fire, though this is supposed to be about the capitol mob, there was a you tube vid i was watching the other day asking non US forces personnel what its like to fight along side their US counterparts.
Vast majority had good tales to tell, but many failed to understand the racism aspect, given US military contains a great deal of black soldiers. They felt there was definitely a racism problem.

I dont think anyone can deny racism is a huge problem in the US and has been for well over a hundred years. 
That said, I personally believe racism is a problem everywhere, and that might just be down to the human condition of one being different from another. Simply nothing more than that.

Personally I prefer brown furniture to white. There, I've said it.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> The parts of this group that got violent should be charged, and the parts who trespassed should be charged. That didn't really happen much with the BLM group.



I think, haven't checked, that there were thousands of BLM arrests. Also, 10 killed by police in Chicago in 3 days wasn't it? 



D_W said:


> If these guys were trying to "overthrow" the government, staying in a building for 3 hours wasn't a very good way to do it.



I think as it comes out we will find some of them were seriously hunting people.


----------



## billw

Anyone else buying shares in popcorn manufacturers today?


----------



## D_W

Jake said:


> I think, haven't checked, that there were thousands of BLM arrests. Also, 10 killed by police in Chicago in 3 days wasn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> I think as it comes out we will find some of them were seriously hunting people.



14,000 blm arrests over a group estimated to be 15MM to 25MM in terms of number of protesters. About 1 in 1500 protesters got arrested. 

How does that compare with last weekend. The group was permitted between 5 and 30k, and there are at least 125 arrests so far (probably more). At least 6 times the arrest rate and they're just getting started. 

As far as "some were hunting people", there were a few who left rotten messages on social media. It appears that they were known about before they got there and they were arrested. I'd bet they didn't get far. Most of the group was unarmed and misguided enough to think they were protesting election integrity. 

The next day, Mike Pence protected the election integrity and showed them what being a "patriot" means (I'm not a fan of labels, but would rather say "showed them what learning of the facts and doing the right thing looks like"). 

If some part of a group of between 5 and 30k people went "hunting" for someone, there would've been some outcome that occurred. I don't believe it was more than fantasy to them, and then reality turned out more sour than they expected.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Personally I prefer brown furniture to white. There, I've said it.



Shoes and boots, too, but in furniture made of leather or wood, definitely brown.


----------



## mikej460

The BLM vs. Capitol riots were so very different to my (ok foreign) eyes. Trump and his cronies forced the police response to the BLM protests in Washington because he is racist; the Capitol riot police response was so ill prepared, despite the FBI warnings, as to be totally inept. That said both sides had their bad actors, thugs who mingled with the protestors and stirred them on. I watched this last night Storming the Capitol: The Inside Story - Storming the Capitol: The Inside Story - ITV Hub 
I'm not sure if D_W will be able to view it, but it is a UK TV channel's on the ground report of the Capitol riot and makes fascinating viewing. I was go-smacked by the interviews with seemingly ordinary, intelligent people at the riot who were genuinely convinced the election was a fraud (although there were some who were just dangerously bonkers).

As for the attempts to impeach Trump, I think the Democrats need to get rid of him politically if they are to move forward to repair the damage Trump has done to the US. He is a dangerous man with mind-boggling control over a large number of people who follow him like lemmings. I also suspect that there is a right wing faction who are just using him to further their own extremist ends.


----------



## Droogs

Pres Trump TOD of administration 21:22GMT


----------



## D_W

I don't have time to watch the special right now (not sure if I can view it), but thank you for the comment in the middle of your assessment, because it matches my thoughts about the group 

>> interviews with seemingly ordinary, intelligent people at the riot who were genuinely convinced the election was a fraud <<

That's my assessment and that's why I think this movement has no long-term teeth. I do what I can when someone brings it up to question what they believe. My father thinks the election was stolen because it corresponds to vote fraud from eons ago in chicago that he remembers occurring. I think he's convinced now because I've run through likelihoods. If there are supposedly 30 provable events of large scale fraud, can you tell me that not a single prosecutor and judge in a conservative district would pick one up? That is *extremely unlikely*. Like perhaps one in 100,000 chance events, but who really knows. We don't make movements in life based on chances like that - it's stupidity. 

But the average person doesn't understand likelihood and speaks in definites instead. This Zilch-Wedlock me off as my job is dealing with probabilities and data that isn't pure and clean. You can sniff out what ifs with bad data to see if it really matters and get an idea of what's likely or not. 

At any rate, because the majority of the group, in my opinion, believes that there's actually an election stolen, they will eventually see enough reality to realize that it wasn't, and it'll die. 

The *vast* majority that I've talked to would have no interest in actually toppling the system - they think they're protecting it and they have a hitch in their giddy-up as soon as you get them to realize they may be wrong. 

The actual dangerous nutballs in the group who have been sniffed out and arrested, I have to say I'm pretty pleased with that. When they post what they posted on facebook, etc, and then show up with illegal or improvised weapons, they're going away. No more wondering.


----------



## TRITON

Also keep in mind that the 'Mob' is actually an entity in its own right. The 'Mob' can act by it's own, and the people in it are mostly powerless to act against it's actions. They are in fact carried along, and later felt they had no control over their actions.








Crowd psychology - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





One could put in the suggestion that with an understanding of crowd behaviour, the lack of dissenting voices contributed to the scenes we witnessed, blame therefore could be leveled against the Republican party, or even the police force, in that knowing how the crowd might act, they stood back and allowed it to continue.
This plays in to the notion of the mob being driven to attempt to overthrow the elected Biden government, and given the Biden government is one of socialist policy, it suggests strongly that the authoritarian aspects of a country's make up are directly responsible for the attack on the Capitol building. ie The police and the military.

This is of course just idle speculation, but lets not forget intellect.
Let's also not forget the assassination of JFK. Another socialist*.

* Socialism is not Communism, nor is it Marxism. Many appear not to know the difference. But to put it in its simplest format - 
Marxism - Everybody has to die for the ideology.
Communism - Everyone has to die for the party.
Socialism - Nobody has to die, and everyone gets a better standard of living.


----------



## D_W

quote today, national guard upped to 20k now. I'd like to say I called this ahead of time- wait, I did - it's in this post. 

(interesting text replacement above - Zilch wedlock?)


----------



## Lons

rafezetter said:


> Yeah but you still gotta do bad stuff to get there, or be very stupid 3 times, so try not to cry too much for them compared to being in a Thai prison eh?


Or the comparible holiday camps in the UK


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Also keep in mind that the 'Mob' is actually an entity in its own right. The 'Mob' can act by it's own, and the people in it are mostly powerless to act against it's actions. They are in fact carried along, and later felt they had no control over their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crowd psychology - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One could put in the suggestion that with an understanding of crowd behaviour, the lack of dissenting voices contributed to the scenes we witnessed, blame therefore could be leveled against the Republican party, or even the police force, in that knowing how the crowd might act, they stood back and allowed it to continue.
> This plays in to the notion of the mob being driven to attempt to overthrow the elected Biden government, and given the Biden government is one socialist policy, it suggests strongly that the authoritarian aspects of a country's make up are directly responsible for the attack on the Capitol building. ie The police and the military.
> 
> This is of course just idle speculation, but lets not forget intellect.



The conservative portions of the government here aren't particularly fascist and never have been. Biden is a moderate, and most people know it (which is how he got the nomination). As far as the mob not being able to move independently, apparently when the woman got shot in one wing, most of the people didn't mindlessly continue on, they followed the police out in an orderly way. 

The history of the conservative party here has been to allow more rights and more individualism, not less or not more mandatory things - with one exception - the older right was obsessed with legislating morality and a puritanist kind of attitude. The far left side of the democratic party has been interested in limiting free speech or forcing certain types of speech by accommodation, but they are a tiny fraction of the fringe. There's no real bulk reason to fear loss of freedom here or imposition of anything by any minority.


----------



## mikej460

TRITON said:


> Socialism - Nobody has to die, and everyone gets a better standard of living.


or rather Nobody has to die, and all get the same standard of living?


----------



## Jacob

mikej460 said:


> ..... all get the same standard of living?


No it would be impossible. 
More a constant process of cheques and balances in a constantly changing scenario. Pretty much how all modern states work anyway, but freer of free market ideology and doing more of what is simply necessary - such as providing homes for the homeless, one of the many things the free market can't do


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Socialism - Nobody has to die, and everyone gets a better standard of living.



There may be one country that has a socialist economy that has a higher per capita GDP and higher average standard of living, and If I'm guessing right, it's because the economy is supported by oil sales. 

Generally, socialism results in lower output, a lower standard of living and greater uniformity. 

At best, median standard of living may be even, lower class would be higher or at least more secure, and anything above that is lower. The trouble with believing that will last in the long term is that it doesn't account for the fact that the highest producers will establish themselves somewhere that's rewarding to them. 





__





Median income - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





That chart is median income (average income is more skewed in favor of the states, we obviously have more income disparity). It also doesn't account for taxes (if you have health care through an employer, in the US, it's far cheaper to live here due to the lower tax burden). 

But you take more risks here because the safety net is at the poverty level, not at the 33rd percentile or some other more comfortable level. 

It drives me up a wall a little when we hear (we here it here, too) that with socialism, everyone gains. All it ignores is reality.


----------



## mikej460

I think the very term puts people off, like communism it has a history and is regarded as an old, unrealistic theory used by politicians to deride attempts to focus on the impoverished. Whereas what you suggest (and I totally agree with) is a fairer economic system that prevents such things as homelessness; however I feel this shouldn't be at the expense of a free market as that is what generates economic wealth to achieve what should be done.


----------



## harryc

@oliverdarcy
While Fox hosts have uttered the words "protest that got out of hand" in last hour, CNN reports via law enforcement official that evidence uncovered so far suggests level of planning that has led investigators to believe attack was not just a protest that spiraled out of control.

No doubt our American friend D_W will still protest it was just a couple of nut jobs!


----------



## D_W

mikej460 said:


> I think the very term puts people off, like communism it has a history and is regarded as an old, unrealistic theory used by politicians to deride attempts to focus on the impoverished. Whereas what you suggest (and I totally agree with) is a fairer economic system that prevents such things as homelessness; however I feel this shouldn't be at the expense of a free market as that is what generates economic wealth to achieve what should be done.


 
It puts people off here, but it's not a new thing. Our papers in the early 1900s were inundated with talk about implementing socialism. If we began to say that we don't have it, it would be very misleading. I just googled the total for medicare, medicaid, disability, social security - about 2.5 trillion per year. 

That doesn't cover unemployment, child assistance, any state or local programs, housing assistance, food stamps. etc. It's probably 3-4 trillion a year. 

We have a highly progressive tax system at the federal level, as do a lot of state and local governments. 

It's just administered in a lot of parts and the non-federal benefits differ by state in some cases. 

Our social spending is probably greater than the GDP of all but four countries (including us). I guess we're socialists.


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> @oliverdarcy
> While Fox hosts have uttered the words "protest that got out of hand" in last hour, CNN reports via law enforcement official that evidence uncovered so far suggests level of planning that has led investigators to believe attack was not just a protest that spiraled out of control.
> 
> No doubt our American friend D_W will still protest it was just a couple of nut jobs!



You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience. 

Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?

Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?

I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from. 

I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.


----------



## harryc

D_W said:


> You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience.
> 
> Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?
> 
> Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?
> 
> I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from.
> 
> I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.





D_W said:


> You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience.
> 
> Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?
> 
> Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?
> 
> I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from.
> 
> I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.



You come across as the typical American we view over here, dogmatic in his/her views unwilling to see what is in front of your eyes. 
But that’s your perogative as you clearly want to see events in your ideology but that’s like a lot of people, its human instinct.

You won’t accept your official reports telling you of pipe bombs brought to the Capitol, hell loads of reports of Republican Congress people showing extremists around Congress just a couple of days before the attack.

What were all those nutters planning on doing with zip ties if not to take hostages?

Might be embarrassing for you to see the outside world looking at your Country as a banana republic but maybe a period of introspection is exactly what’s needed by the so called silent majority to send the neandenthrals back to the caves who came out after Obama got elected.


----------



## D_W

you're drawing a conclusion and I'm waiting for information. You think that someone is going to take over the government and I don't. I personally think you have bad judgement if you actually think you're likely to be correct. It's that simple.

As far as embarrassment, you may have noticed that we (most americans) don't really run around worrying about appearances. I think that's kind of man pursey, actually, but we're aware that there's a fairly large group of people in other countries who have a chip on their shoulder about the state and always hope for the news to be as bad as possible. 

I think we have a disinformation problem that'll be solved as reality sinks in to the bulk of the misinformed. I actually live here, you watch the news channels. Your quotes above sort of clarify reality - a protest that got out of hand (yes), and a news channel that offered that it was going from objective news to a slant, but they put a shiny hook in the water and you're on it.

You've singled out a couple of doofuses -doofus one brought pipe bombs but didn't use them. Doofus 2 brought zip ties, but didn't use them. Let's assume they were actually nuts and did use them (it's a bit odd that if they'd have intended to, neither did - in fact, nobody used anything but a fire extinguisher and things they could grab). Are you really that dense that here in the states where about half of the households have guns that these folks went to the capitol unarmed and decided
1) we're staging a coup
2) we're going to do it unarmed, because if we're armed, we hear it's a felony to do an armed coup

It's inconvenient for you, maybe, if you're hoping for the worst that sanity is the most likely thing to prevail. People who speculate and hope for the worst, I don't know, I really don't get it. To me, it signals something not that great.


----------



## Lefley

Trainee neophyte said:


> At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?
> 
> If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.
> 
> Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?
> 
> Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?


But they want to impeach him, so they can then stop him from ever again holding an elected office. That is there end game.


----------



## Chris70

Woody2Shoes said:


> I think you're revealing a bit about your social milieu !


Err, which of these do you mean?


AcronymDefinitionLBDLittle Black DressLBDLearning by DoingLBDLigand Binding DomainLBDLewy Body Dementia _(aka Lewy Body Disease)_LBDLarge Block DeviceLBDLogical Block DeviceLBDLow Battery Detector _(electronics)_LBD LBDLibrary Book Discussion _(teenagers)_LBDLondon Beth DinLBDLong Block Data _(computing standard; International Disk Drive Equipment and Materials Association)_LBDLittle Black DuckLBDLaser Beam DetectorLBDLittle Brothers' Disease _(band)_LBDLost Bather Drill _(Life guarding)_LBDLocal Bills DiscountedLBDLaser Beam Defocus _(mechanism)_LBDTwin-Engine McDonnell, Navy Special Plane _(US Navy)_
Copyright 1988-2018 AcronymFinder.com, All rights reserved.

Suggest new definition


----------



## Chris70

rafezetter said:


> Yeah but you still gotta do bad stuff to get there, or be very stupid 3 times, so try not to cry too much for them compared to being in a Thai prison eh?


In a number of cases (unsure of the percentage), the only criterion is to be BAME!


----------



## Chris70

Jacob said:


> They are not though. "....As of July 2016, White Americans are the racial majority. Hispanic and Latino Americans are the largest ethnic minority, comprising an estimated 18% of the population. African Americans are the second largest racial minority, comprising an estimated 13.4% of the population...."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...016, White,estimated 13.4% of the population.Would that include slavery itself? Do you have any references backing up this astonishingly large and precise figure? Is the American justice system really so infallible?


I think 99.9% is probably just a figure plucked out of thin air...


----------



## Jacob

mikej460 said:


> I think the very term puts people off, like communism it has a history and is regarded as an old, unrealistic theory used by politicians to deride attempts to focus on the impoverished. Whereas what you suggest (and I totally agree with) is a fairer economic system that prevents such things as homelessness; however I feel this shouldn't be at the expense of a free market as that is what generates economic wealth to achieve what should be done.


"Free market" is largely supported and couldn't function without the state.
Free market theories "neo-liberalism" etc are much more "ideological" and unrealistic than socialism - which is basically pragmatic and concerned with how to get things done for the benefit of all: you don't need a political or economic theory to remedy homelessness, all you need is to recognise the failure of free markets and build more homes.


----------



## Jelly

Jacob said:


> "Free market" is largely supported and couldn't function without the state.


*Too right it is!*

But it's worth mentioning the reason why so many people don't get that: "The Free Market" is the single most misused term in modern economics.

Adam Smith used it to mean a system where measured regulations eliminated "economic rent" (charging money for an activity Wii h doesn't add value, rather than rental of property per se), broadly consistent with the ordo-liberal approach which brought about "wirtschaftswunder" in post war Germany.

The current neo-liberal orthodoxy spurred on by the "Chicago School" seems to use it to refer to some kind of hyper-deregulated anarcho-capitwlist wet-dream consistent only with the views of people who believe Ayn Rand was a visionary prophet on the same level as Jesus.

In a related note modern "Economics" is subject to a whole lot of political biases, and the discourse we see from politicians and on the news is increasingly divorced from the realities which econometric analysis of our systems reveal... 

Hence why the IFS and ONS frequently trash policies the government advocates.

Anyway, rant over.


----------



## Nigel Burden

It's getting rather silly now.

Newly elected Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green says that she will file impeachment articles against Joe Biden on his first day in the Oval Office on grounds of "Abuse of power."

Nigel.


----------



## selectortone

Nigel Burden said:


> It's getting rather silly now.
> 
> Newly elected Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green says that she will file impeachment articles against Joe Biden on his first day in the Oval Office on grounds of "Abuse of power."
> 
> Nigel.


This is the woman who couldn't see the irony in wearing a mask in congress with 'censored' written on it. Standing up and speaking on TV in front of millions of watchers.


----------



## Vann

D_W said:


> ...When we have stupid movements like "Defund the police" I don't agree with any of that...


For you to call that "stupid" you obviously don't understand what defunding the police is about. It seems like a reasonable argument IMHO.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## Vann

D_W said:


> ...Most of the group was unarmed and* misguided enough to think they were protesting election integrity*...



I agree here. It will be interesting to see if we're wrong, but I doubt it on evidence so far.

Cheers, Vann.


----------



## billw

.


selectortone said:


> This is the woman who couldn't see the irony in wearing a mask in congress with 'censored' written on it. Standing up and speaking on TV in front of millions of watchers.



She's absolutely batsh1t that one.


----------



## D_W

Vann said:


> For you to call that "stupid" you obviously don't understand what defunding the police is about. It seems like a reasonable argument IMHO.
> 
> Cheers, Vann.



It's been described as a range of things here - from taking police funding away to restructuring funding, to eliminating police funding permanently to spend the money elsewhere or some combination of the above.

It's idealistic to say the least. If there are other places where funding has merit, it should go there, but most of the places that have "police problems" also have serious drug and domestic abuse ,etc, problems that aren't solvable by social workers in the short term. 

If mental health and social work solve the problem, why haven't they solved it already? If there's not enough there in those agencies, why not beef them up and solve the problem and then cut police funding? The trouble with idealistic political movements is that they usually don't solve a problem, create another problem, or pick a strange order in solving a problem. I guess a movement in the pattern of my last point (increasing funding for other agencies and then cutting funding for police once they've shown to reduce the need for the police) isn't popular because someone wants to win a fight or punish someone else. 

(separate note, I saw a summary by a BLM member, who is likely antifa but wouldn't admit in his article - he has never voted according to him, went to the protest to film dressed like antifa, faked himself as an election conspiracist by repeating the things other people were saying, and ended up getting the only video of the woman who was shot. Paraphrasing what he said (which matches what I'd guessed), most people that he talked to there had no real objective - they just went in. He expressed anger at the shooting of the protester I guess based on the circumstances - I didn't watch his video - there is no reason for me to watch video of someone dying, I don't have the curiosity bone to see that. More or less stating that she wasn't doing anything that would trigger being shot). 

He also said there was relatively little resistance from the police except for a few individual officers (which matches the account of the person whose post I read the next day - the first I'd heard of the invasion/riot in the first place).

Across the board here now, the military and .gov agencies are being screened for anyone who thinks they're not loyal to the incoming president. The issue is dying quickly aside from the chance that wingnuts or small groups of wingnuts may do something stupid.


----------



## D_W

Nigel Burden said:


> It's getting rather silly now.
> 
> Newly elected Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green says that she will file impeachment articles against Joe Biden on his first day in the Oval Office on grounds of "Abuse of power."
> 
> Nigel.



She'll be voted out at the end of her term if she isn't chased out before.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> "Free market" is largely supported and couldn't function without the state.
> Free market theories "neo-liberalism" etc are much more "ideological" and unrealistic than socialism - which is basically pragmatic and concerned with how to get things done for the benefit of all: you don't need a political or economic theory to remedy homelessness, all you need is to recognise the failure of free markets and build more homes.



And what's the solution with regulation and socialism? We lost multi-unit housing here because it's politically incorrect. The solution is to build townhouses for housing assistance that cost more than the average home price in the united states (per townhouse unit). Unfortunately, the funding doesn't go as far doing that, but I guess it looks good. 

The publicly assisted housing usually gets destroyed quickly and there is no remedy to prevent it from happening, and no consequence (what could the motivator be when the residents have no assets and can just move to a different municipality when they're evicted?). 

Socialism generally doesn't have much long-term economic success. Without economic success, you don't have sustainability, and the decline brings corruption (argentina) and inefficient direction of money. 

mock free markets with socialized downside protection and wide open upsides don't work that great, either, but do better at increasing the overall standard of living. At least the groups getting the downside protection tend to be the ones paying for it.


----------



## Jacob

Jacob said:


> Unless there _is_ unequal treatment of course. When did unequal treatment stop in the USA?











US police three times as likely to use force against leftwing protesters, data finds


Law enforcement responses to more than 13,000 protests show a clear disparity in responses, new statistics show




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Trainee neophyte

D_W said:


> Across the board here now, the military and .gov agencies are being screened for anyone who thinks they're not loyal to the incoming president.


That is surreal and bizarre, and has all the hallmarks of a third world banana republic. Purge the government at every change of leadership. Purge all social media of any right - wing politics. Purge. Does no one else see this as ominous? Or are all Trump supporters now beyond the pale, and to be treated accordingly?

Nothing to be scared of at all.


> ...the Pale of Settlement, after Russian čerta osedlosti, literally boundary of settlement, was a set of specified provinces and districts within which Jews in Russia and Russian-occupied Poland were required to reside between 1791 and 1917.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> That is surreal and bizarre, and has all the hallmarks of a third world banana republic. Purge the government at every change of leadership. Purge all social media of any right - wing politics. Purge. Does no one else see this as ominous? Or are all Trump supporters now beyond the pale, and to be treated accordingly?
> 
> Nothing to be scared of at all.


Sounds like a simple and necessary intelligence test to me. It's their job to protect democracy. They were protecting Trump before he finally blew it and became a threat to democracy.
The surreal and bizarre part is those mobs of nutters threatening people with lethal weapons, quite legally, trying to restart the civil war.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Sounds like a simple and necessary intelligence test to me. It's their job to protect democracy. They were protecting Trump before he finally blew it and became a threat to democracy.
> The surreal and bizarre part is those mobs of nutters threatening people with lethal weapons, quite legally, trying to restart the civil war.



Ah, yes. Trump is insane, therefore all Trump supporters are insane, therefore all actions are justified. This must be true, because Twitter, Facebook and all media outlets confirmed it. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## Droogs

could say the same about german politicians and their supporters one lifetime ago. Perhaps a complete de-trumpification programme is needed within the realms of US governance and politics. After all you wouldn''t want to risk having "werewolves" hiding in the bushes would you?


----------



## TRITON

Hey guys. What do we think on Trump moving to Texas after being sacked and then that state going rogue ?.
Texas has always wanted to be a country in it's own right, and has recently brought that issue up.

If he is impeached- unlikely- as he didn't actually say Invade the capitol and attack/imprison/**** the members, rather to fight them and as we know fight can mean many things, not necessarily using violent means.


----------



## Noel

TRITON said:


> Hey guys. What do we think on Trump moving to Texas after being sacked and then that state going rogue ?.
> Texas has always wanted to be a country in it's own right, and has recently brought that issue up.
> 
> *If he is impeached- unlikely*- as he didn't actually say Invade the capitol and attack/imprison/**** the members, rather to fight them and as we know fight can mean many things, not necessarily using violent means.



If he is impeached..........


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Droogs said:


> could say the same about german politicians and their supporters one lifetime ago. Perhaps a complete de-trumpification programme is needed within the realms of US governance and politics. After all you wouldn''t want to risk having "werewolves" hiding in the bushes would you?


So Trump = Hitler?


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> Ah, yes. Trump is insane, therefore all Trump supporters are insane,


Yes I think you've got the idea. 
What took you so long?


> therefore all actions are justified.....


_Appropriate_ actions are justified


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> So Trump = Hitler?


Not yet, but on the spectrum.


----------



## Just4Fun

D_W said:


> Across the board here now, the military and .gov agencies are being screened for anyone who thinks they're not loyal to the incoming president.


I thought they were supposed to be loyal to the constitution, not to the president. So who is doing the screening?


----------



## Jacob

Just4Fun said:


> I thought they were supposed to be loyal to the constitution, not to the president. So who is doing the screening?


It amounts to the same thing if the president is totally legit. They were loyal to Trump until he blew it and started acting illegally.


----------



## TRITON

Trainee neophyte said:


> So Trump = Hitler?



Welllll... Didn't want to add this but....

From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore.. Turning man against his brother, 'Til man exists no more.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Not yet, but on the spectrum.



Just my opinion, I think trump is "intentionally more harmless", i'll explain that. I'm guessing hitler was no smarter than trump but "worked a lot harder" and had much more specific intent. 

I think trump is delirious in different ways - such as he actually may have believed that the election results must've been false because "who could possibly not like me? I've always won eventually by being persistent". 

Once there's no reward, I doubt he'll keep going on. I think he's an extreme example of thinking confidence is more than competence, and I'd bet he's surprised by the capitol riot result. I think he's surprised by a lot of outcomes because he's dealing with the public now and not sycophants in a business and you can't just win by annoying someone else until they give up.

Or to be more compact, he's a rotten spoiled cowpat and is in over his head with the job, and now he's not comprehending how disastrous his tantrums and "i have to win, i will win, I'll bet I actually did win" attitude is.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> It amounts to the same thing if the president is totally legit. They were loyal to Trump until he blew it and started acting illegally.



Two parts to this:
* the individuals take an oath to the constitution
* military and agency individuals generally have a chain of command - first you follow the chain of command. If the chain of command violates the constitution, then you do not follow.

I'd guess the screening is to find dummies who think "trump really won and the election was stolen" and make sure they understand who is at the top of the chain of command and what that means in regard to their oath.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Hey guys. What do we think on Trump moving to Texas after being sacked and then that state going rogue ?.



No chance. He might move to texas, but they won't allow him anywhere near austin. 

I think there's a very real chance now that his post-office life will involve enormous amounts of bankrtupcies at properties that attract the public, or even real estate leases. The name is toxic, or rather his name is a toxic brand, and nobody will be associated with it. 

He is so naive that he personally guaranteed a lot of his corporations' ability to pay, so the outcome of that is default of the businesses leading to consumption of personal assets this time rather than having a legal shield. 

I'm checking out of this thread for real this time - come back in a couple of weeks. I do expect some newsworthy smaller riots from people who still think Trump won the election - the fact that trump even came out and asked for no violence or looting is very unusual. He's so spoiled and such a sore loser that even when he knows he's wrong, he doesn't usually apologize. The train no longer has fire in the firebox and soon the steam will run out.


----------



## TRITON

@D_W
He is causing a great deal of division within the Republican party with his speech that only himself and his mob are the republican party, so anyone stands against him, stands against him mob and therefore....
That's bound to cause a lot of mayhem, and is probably more to do with the majority that didn't vote for impeachment. They possibly see see that by voting for it, they risk the wrath of the mob, and losing support means losing their position.


> the fact that trump even came out and asked for no violence or looting is very unusual.


He's ratifying his position in impeachment. As you say such a move is unlikely, in that he wont lose the trial should it come to that. He didn't actually say, 'Go Violently Attack the capitol building', he said fight them, in the same way you fight an election. At the same time he didn't say dont violently attack them, but its a way of stepping back from the implication. As you know, words have multiple meanings when it comes to law.
As with this from Legal Eagle. Short vid, well worth a watch.


----------



## Jameshow

D_W sorry to hear it, I personally appreciated your balanced and insightful posts in a sea of polarised opinion.

Having driven from NY to Michigan I have seen and enjoyed a little bit of the USA and Canada and the BBC version isn't the real version.

Cheers James


----------



## rafezetter

Jacob said:


> They are not though. "....As of July 2016, White Americans are the racial majority. Hispanic and Latino Americans are the largest ethnic minority, comprising an estimated 18% of the population. African Americans are the second largest racial minority, comprising an estimated 13.4% of the population...."
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...016, White,estimated 13.4% of the population.Would that include slavery itself? Do you have any references backing up this astonishingly large and precise figure? Is the American justice system really so infallible?




Sorry to clarify I meant majority population inside prisons, not outside.

I cited 99.9% as a reasonable figure - yes there ARE people incarcerated in prison whom are either victims of a badly biased jury, circumstantial evidence that was enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt", fallible DNA evidence, or plain "framed".

Of the current 2.12 million inmates, 0.1% = 2120 people. Are there over 2,000 wholly innocent people in US jails?

I'd agree with 200 but 2120? Absolutely not; but feel free to contradict that Jacob, reasonable facts never stopped you before.


----------



## Jacob

rafezetter said:


> Sorry to clarify I meant majority population inside prisons, not outside.
> 
> I cited 99.9% as a reasonable figure - yes there ARE people incarcerated in prison whom are either victims of a badly biased jury, circumstantial evidence that was enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt", fallible DNA evidence, or plain "framed".
> 
> Of the current 2.12 million inmates, 0.1% = 2120 people. Are there over 2,000 wholly innocent people in US jails?
> 
> I'd agree with 200 but 2120? Absolutely not; but feel free to contradict that Jacob, reasonable facts never stopped you before.


I made no claims about the numbers, is it a reasonable fact or not, you seem to think you know?








Why American Prisons Owe Their Cruelty to Slavery (Published 2019)


Our criminal justice system is still shaped by a fear of black people and a taste for violent punishment born on the plantation.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## D_W

Jameshow said:


> D_W sorry to hear it, I personally appreciated your balanced and insightful posts in a sea of polarised opinion.
> 
> Having driven from NY to Michigan I have seen and enjoyed a little bit of the USA and Canada and the BBC version isn't the real version.
> 
> Cheers James



It's not a "i'm storming off and don't want to be part of the conversation", more of a recognition of what i like to do - wait, and see what happens, and try to find decent "news" rather than commentary later to see what it was.

I was heartened by the independent guy (who was BLM, and skated around saying he was antifa, claiming that he just dressed like them - he was probably a fan of that). I would assume he intermingled for a whole bunch of reasons, and some may not have been so honest (trying to catch footage of people he opposed being the fascists he assumed they were). And it seems like observing the goings on and especially witnessing an unjust shooting has centered him a little bit.

I sure hope that in every event like this, at least someone realizes the other made up evil side they're arguing against while they willfully practice verisimilitude is people.

I think lemonade of some sort can be made from everything, even if you didn't want the lemons in the first place, but the media (from both viewpoints) will be too busy scraping the peels out of the lemons and trying to keep anyone away from making lemonade.


----------



## Jelly

*Edit:* I realise this reads a bit more confrontational than I really intended it to be, ideally that should be taken as an indicator of my extreme frustration with unnecessary polarisation of the media and not a personal attack on @D_W who always seems to be a perfectly reasonable chap.



D_W said:


> skated around saying he was antifa,



What does that have to do with the price of milk?

Most reasonable people are opposed to facism and facistic behaviours.

The anti-fascist movement had been around longer than I've been alive, and has been broadly uncontroversial until the moment that they began to oppose Trump, at which point they were transformed into some kind of bogeyman divorced from reality in certain sections of the media.

Or to quote comments at the time of that starting from a Northern Irish chap I know:

_"I was in America fair recent, so I was and there's all this blather on the news about violent protests, and I think Oh Aye? Really.

So I paid attention and watched the video clip so I did, and it's like a wee scuffle outside a pub on the Saturday night, with some [offensive word] talking it up like he's watching the loyalists kicking off that the Orangemen can't march down Garvaghy Road, or the nationalists learning Bobby Sands had died... Pure fantasy from the newsreader."_


----------



## billw

Jelly said:


> What does that have to do with the price of milk?
> 
> Most reasonable people are opposed to facism and facistic behaviours.



I do laugh when I see Republican senators stand up in the House and say "antifa scum" as if being anti-fascist is a bad thing


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Yes I think you've got the idea.
> What took you so long?_Appropriate_ actions are justified


You boys need to get a grip. Your version of reality is just as skewed and unsustainable as your imagined enemies'.


----------



## D_W

Jelly said:


> *Edit:* I realise this reads a bit more confrontational than I really intended it to be, ideally that should be taken as an indicator of my extreme frustration with unnecessary polarisation of the media and not a personal attack on @D_W who always seems to be a perfectly reasonable chap.
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the price of milk?
> 
> Most reasonable people are opposed to facism and facistic behaviours.
> 
> The anti-fascist movement had been around longer than I've been alive, and has been broadly uncontroversial until the moment that they began to oppose Trump, at which point they were transformed into some kind of bogeyman divorced from reality in certain sections of the media.
> 
> Or to quote comments at the time of that starting from a Northern Irish chap I know:
> 
> _"I was in America fair recent, so I was and there's all this blather on the news about violent protests, and I think Oh Aye? Really.
> 
> So I paid attention and watched the video clip so I did, and it's like a wee scuffle outside a pub on the Saturday night, with some [offensive word] talking it up like he's watching the loyalists kicking off that the Orangemen can't march down Garvaghy Road, or the nationalists learning Bobby Sands had died... Pure fantasy from the newsreader."_



Antifa is a convenient name. The people who opposed germany and the antifa group in the united states don't have the same objectives. Unless I don't know my history well enough and the people in germany prior to the nazis had a significant number of communist and anarchist idealists in their group.

And used doxing, physical violence, vandalism and theft as part of their day to day tactics.

What does it have to do with this group, though? If you told me someone took a smart phone to an antifa group, but dressed like them and mimicked them, I would assume they weren't there to get objective journalism _if they were part of some fundamentalist "patriot" group. _


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I do laugh when I see Republican senators stand up in the House and say "antifa scum" as if being anti-fascist is a bad thing



(having a problem with antifa, the group in the US that vandalizes and blindsides people in rallies is not the same thing as supporting fascism).


----------



## Jelly

D_W said:


> Antifa is a convenient name. The people who opposed germany and the antifa group in the united states don't have the same objectives.



I don't believe that "antifa" is a cohesive organisation in a manner that allows a single set of objectives to assigned to them.

(Hell, I've spent enough time with people on the far left of the political spectrum (in the UK, so ardent communists by US standards) to know that even when they do form a cohesive organisation, they wouldn't have a clear and coherent set of objectives that could be conveniently expressed.)



It is however politically expedient in some quarters to label them as one group and tar them with the same brush as the most badly behaved amongst them...

Much in the same way many people are willing to rush to judgement and consider every person at the capitol protests as being at the same level of reprehensibity as say the "Proud Boys", and that's not actually a good reflection.





> Unless I don't know my history well enough and the people in germany prior to the nazis had a significant number of communist and anarchist idealists in their group.



Not so much on the anarchism (Germany does have a lot of history with anarchism too, but not so much right then), but many of the most staunch opponents of the Nazi's (and the Mussolini regime) were either moderate commmunists or socialist Trade Unionists (which was a somewhat fractious alliance) along with elements of the Catholic Church (even more fractious).

Similarly during the Spanish Civil War the umbrella of organisations resisting the Franco Regime were socialist or communist, and it became a proxy war between the USSR and Nazi Germany.

During WW2 the Italian Partisans and the "Maquis" french resistance organisation were actively communist organisations.

The anti-fascist movement in the UK was born out of the Jewish Labour movement, the Young Socialists and (predominantly Irish) Dockworkers Unions and engaged in literal open warfare on the streets of London (and other provincial towns) with Oswald Moseley's "Blackshirts" in the late 30's... (Also, won decisively in those confrontations).

So the far left has been at the heart of anti-fascism since the beginning.


----------



## gregmcateer

rafezetter said:


> Sorry to clarify I meant majority population inside prisons, not outside.
> 
> I cited 99.9% as a reasonable figure - yes there ARE people incarcerated in prison whom are either victims of a badly biased jury, circumstantial evidence that was enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt", fallible DNA evidence, or plain "framed".
> 
> Of the current 2.12 million inmates, 0.1% = 2120 people. Are there over 2,000 wholly innocent people in US jails?
> 
> I'd agree with 200 but 2120? Absolutely not; but feel free to contradict that Jacob, reasonable facts never stopped you before.



Surprisingly, it may be higher than one might expect:









Op-Ed: John Grisham: Eight reasons for America's shameful number of wrongful convictions


It is too easy to convict an innocent person.




www.latimes.com





Not saying it is infallible, but I've a sneaking suspicion this article has been carefully researched, compared with say, a hurried post from from Karen on facebook.

If you've got Netflix, 'when they see us' is highly watchable, if disturbing.


----------



## harryc

Trainee neophyte said:


> You boys need to get a grip. Your version of reality is just as skewed and unsustainable as your imagined enemies'.



I suppose you thought Golden Dawn were not a danger to your country either!


----------



## RobinBHM

rafezetter said:


> Sorry to clarify I meant majority population inside prisons, not outside.
> 
> I cited 99.9% as a reasonable figure - yes there ARE people incarcerated in prison whom are either victims of a badly biased jury, circumstantial evidence that was enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt", fallible DNA evidence, or plain "framed".
> 
> Of the current 2.12 million inmates, 0.1% = 2120 people. Are there over 2,000 wholly innocent people in US jails?
> 
> I'd agree with 200 but 2120? Absolutely not; but feel free to contradict that Jacob, reasonable facts never stopped you before.


I would imagine there are many thousands of innocent people in US jails as a result of their plea bargaining system.

It always seems ironic to me that the country that calls itself the "land of the free" has pretty much more of its population incarcerated than any other country.

Privatised prisons....what could possibly go wrong.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Ah, yes. Trump is insane, therefore all Trump supporters are insane, therefore all actions are justified. This must be true, because Twitter, Facebook and all media outlets confirmed it. What could possibly go wrong?



Trump fuels division with his non stop lies, gaslighting, uniting against a common enemy, encouraging far right groups, inciting hatred of immigrants.

It's is unhealthy to allow Trump access to SM to continue this.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> I would imagine there are many thousands of innocent people in US jails as a result of their plea bargaining system.
> 
> It always seems ironic to me that the country that calls itself the "land of the free" has pretty much more of its population incarcerated than any other country.
> 
> Privatised prisons....what could possibly go wrong.


less than 5% of the world population but 25% of the prisoners. USA leads the world.
It's the remnants of the traditional penal labour system originally developed as a replacement for slavery.


----------



## TRITON

harryc said:


> I suppose you thought Golden Dawn were not a danger to your country either!



So 'Golden Dawn' isnt a brand of morning coffee then ?


----------



## fixit45

I THOUGHT THIS WAS A WORKSHOP FORUM !!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????


----------



## TRITON

fixit45 said:


> I THOUGHT THIS WAS A WORKSHOP FORUM !!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????


It is, and theres loads of topics relating to that in the different sections. 
This area is called 'Off Topic' therefore its not solely about wood and metal and making stuff. 

You have to admit that this subject has connotations for us all, and is what you might describe as 'HOT' currently, ergo people want to talk and discuss it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

And the insanity continues. Trump is now Golden Dawn, which was a tiny group of deranged silly people. This may come as a shock to you all, but virtually half of the American electorate (who actually voted), voted for Trump. Are you sure that disenfranchising half of the electorate is a good idea? Are you convinced that, if you only silence all the opposition, everything will be fine? Trump supporters are obviously misguided fools, so if we just re-educate them, we can bring them back to the fold?

"Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it” 

Pol Pot believed in reduction camps, too.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Trump fuels division with his non stop lies, gaslighting, uniting against a common enemy, encouraging far right groups, inciting hatred of immigrants.
> 
> It's is unhealthy to allow Trump access to SM to continue this.


Can we agree to remove _all_ politicians from social media? Otherwise, I don't agree to your plan to silence anyone, just becuse you don't like his message. I think a much better idea would be to silence _you,_ because you don't agree with my point of view. 

Actually, silencing anyone is known to be a very bad idea. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, and having free speech that is only free provided it complies with the current thought police edicts is not free. You really must know this, and are either a totalitarian or just not thinking straight at the moment. This stuff really isn't rocket science.

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> Can we agree to remove _all_ politicians from social media? Otherwise, I don't agree to your plan to silence anyone, just becuse you don't like his message. I think a much better idea would be to silence _you,_ because you don't agree with my point of view.
> 
> Actually, silencing anyone is known to be a very bad idea. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, and having free speech that is only free provided it complies with the current thought police edicts is not free. You really must know this, and are either a totalitarian or just not thinking straight at the moment. This stuff really isn't rocket science.
> 
> First they came for the Communists
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a Communist
> 
> Then they came for the Socialists
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a Socialist
> 
> Then they came for the trade unionists
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a trade unionist
> 
> Then they came for the Jews
> And I did not speak out
> Because I was not a Jew
> 
> Then they came for me
> And there was no one left
> To speak out for me



It is not about not liking his message.....that's a strawman

It is the damage that message does.
The message of ISIS spreading violence is also suppressed.

I agree with free speech....the problem is that lies spread faster than the truth. Look at Brexit, endless dishonest tropes get spread so fast, it's impossible to counter it. 

Perhaps you could explain how we spread the message of honesty faster than the lies.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> .... This may come as a shock to you all, but virtually half of the American electorate (who actually voted), voted for Trump. ,,,,,


This may come as a shock to you but they weren't disenfranchised - they voted for Trump, but were beaten overall. 
It's not difficult to understand, all elections involve winners and losers: 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia


----------



## harryc

Judge calls Capitol siege 'violent insurrection,' orders man who wore horns held


A federal judge on Friday ordered a far-right conspiracy theorist who left an ominous note for Vice President Mike Pence inside the U.S. Capitol to be detained pending trial, saying he participated in a "violent insurrection."




www.reuters.com


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> This may come as a shock to you but they weren't disenfranchised - they voted for Trump, but were beaten overall.


This may come as a shock to _you_, but there is a significant number of people who feel that the election was rigged, and that the legal system then failed to give them even peremptory justice, and now their ability to speak out is being removed as fast as possible. It doesn't matter that _you_ believe they are wrong - _they_ still believe they are being beset at every turn. By disenfranchised, I meant that they feel they have had all democratic, civil options removed, rather than just losing an election. If their vote isn't counted, and their voice isn't heard - what comes next? Soap box, ballot box, bullet box? Is that your intention?

All I see is is a gleeful Left desparately trying to encourage violence, for no purpose. Why do that? Who benefits? When was the last time that a losing candidate was impeached, because he lost?

An interesting theory that I don't yet ascribe to is that the Democrats probably did rig the election, because why else all this out and out warfare on the right? If they had won honestly, they would use the immortal words of Barack Obama: "I won, you lost; get over it". As it is, the Color Revolution process requires a disorderly transition of power, so the opposition can be reviled, silenced and made illegal.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> It is not about not liking his message.....that's a strawman
> 
> It is the damage that message does.
> The message of ISIS spreading violence is also suppressed.
> 
> I agree with free speech....the problem is that lies spread faster than the truth. Look at Brexit, endless dishonest tropes get spread so fast, it's impossible to counter it.
> 
> Perhaps you could explain how we spread the message of honesty faster than the lies.


The problem here is that your "truth'" is no less subjective than the the opposite side's "truth". Who to believe? Who is the final arbiter? Neither side will believe the other, and both sides appear to have have a very loose idea of what "truth" actually means. On that basis, I say silence nobody. Hear all sides. My reasoning is simple: you start suppressing voices, they will use other means to make themselves heard. Even more importantly, just because it is not you being silenced today, it doesn't mean it won't be you being silenced tomorrow. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.


----------



## Droogs

Just because they *feel *the election was rigged when the *facts *says otherwise does not give them licence to do as they have done. Doen't matter what they "believe", if it did then ISIS should still be running most of the middle east: every Geman should be wearing black or brown; every monkey should be getting hanged for being a Spanish spy: et al

Bull merd argument TN c'mon you can do better.

There is not alternate facts/truths etc only that which is factually correct and that which when presented in any other way is a lie


----------



## billw

Jacob said:


> This may come as a shock to you but they weren't disenfranchised - they voted for Trump, but were beaten overall.
> It's not difficult to understand, all elections involve winners and losers: 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia



Exactly, they complain their voice "isn't being heard" but they voted. Their voice was heard. It just wasn't as loud as the one from people who like the other guy.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> This may come as a shock to _you_, but there is a significant number of people who feel that the election was rigged, and that the legal system then failed to give them even peremptory justice, and now their ability to speak out is being removed as fast as possible. It doesn't matter that _you_ believe they are wrong - _they_ still believe they are being beset at every turn. By disenfranchised, I meant that they feel they have had all democratic, civil options removed, rather than just losing an election. If their vote isn't counted, and their voice isn't heard - what comes next? Soap box, ballot box, bullet box? Is that your intention?
> 
> All I see is is a gleeful Left desparately trying to encourage violence, for no purpose. Why do that? Who benefits? When was the last time that a losing candidate was impeached, because he lost?
> 
> An interesting theory that I don't yet ascribe to is that the Democrats probably did rig the election, because why else all this out and out warfare on the right? If they had won honestly, they would use the immortal words of Barack Obama: "I won, you lost; get over it". As it is, the Color Revolution process requires a disorderly transition of power, so the opposition can be reviled, silenced and made illegal.


How do you think things should have been handled differently?
What should the outcome have been?


----------



## billw

Trainee neophyte said:


> The problem here is that your "truth'" is no less subjective than the the opposite side's "truth". Who to believe? Who is the final arbiter? Neither side will believe the other, and both sides appear to have have a very loose idea of what "truth" actually means. On that basis, I say silence nobody. Hear all sides. My reasoning is simple: you start suppressing voices, they will use other means to make themselves heard. Even more importantly, just because it is not you being silenced today, it doesn't mean it won't be you being silenced tomorrow. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.



There can only ever be one set of facts. That is what makes them facts rather than being estimates, opinions or lies.

The US election has not factually been shown to be fraudulent, the people's opinions fueled by Trump's lies say that it was. But they can't prove it was, which either 1) fuels conspiracy theories or 2) corroborates the existing position of no fraud.

Trump's continued lies were partially because he can't admit to losing, but also because he's a grifter and look how much money he raised from lying. Why would he stop?


----------



## Skydivermel

Talking about free speech and/or freedom of speech. If you believe we have free speech then you should read this book. Here


----------



## D_W

fixit45 said:


> I THOUGHT THIS WAS A WORKSHOP FORUM !!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????



"Off topic" seems to be a concept that a large cohort can't grasp. 

It'd be lovely if the moderators had a way of making the OT forums invisible to each person who complains about off topic material being in off topic forums.


----------



## Jake

Instaban?


----------



## kwigly

In the 2016 presidential election the was a large group on the losing side who refused to accept the vote results and ran a loud and persistent campaign of “not my president” and “the Russians stole it”. They seemed to have a fair number of people who wondered if there might be a little truth behind their claims (although not enough ardent “believers” to mount a protest march to the Capitol), so the best way to defuse the conflict was determined to be the convening of a public investigation. The Russian influence investigation lasted years, cost millions of dollars, was vilified by both sides as not sufficiently supporting their particular viewpoints/biases. After the sacrifice of a few victims, the investigation ultimately released their findings that although some people’s individual actions were unacceptable, there was insufficient evidence to say that Russian influence had any significant affect on the overall election result or that there was a conspiracy to do this.
I’d suggest the best way to defuse the current conflict over the 2020 election might be to have a similar detailed open investigation of the various claims of election vote fraud and vote counting manipulation. Investigators can say “allegations have been made, and the alligators will be found”. Some victims will be sacrificed. Both sides will rant/grumble/complain. It will cost a lot of money. But in the end, everyone will see that at least their views have been aired and given some consideration.
The large cost of a detailed investigation would be small in comparison to the cost of violent conflict. Violent conflict will certainly emerge as “the only way to be heard” if the losing sides concerns are just summarily dismissed in the courts on “insufficient evidence” or “we decline to consider this claim”, and if the voices opposing the Winner’s narrative are just censored and the claimants punished.

You’d think that Americans might be aware that not having a voice heard in political argument was a prime cause in the original American Revolution.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

You all seem to be assuming that your facts are the correct, true, and only facts. Anything that doesn't comply with your truth must be a lie. It must be nice to be that confident about everything.

Maybe I will just roll over and agree that Trump is a Nazi - it would definitely make my life easier. He almost certainly tried to start a shooting war, and is clinically insane. Problem solved. - where do I get my social credit score bonus points? Everywhere I look, facts checkers confirm just how free and fair all the elections were, so it must be true, mustn't it? Otherwise it would be a huge conspiracy involving government, the Democratic party, the Republican party, and any number of private corporations. Wow! That would be insane.

Here's hoping the lunatics haven't just taken over the asylum. Fingers crossed reality is exactly as advertised.

@kwigly agree wholeheartedly. However, it appears to me (looking in from the outside) that reconciliation, openness, fairness etc is absolutely not on the cards. I hope I'm wrong about that, too.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> You all seem to be assuming that your facts are the correct, true, and only facts. Anything that doesn't comply with your truth must be a lie. It must be nice to be that confident about everything.
> 
> Maybe I will just roll over and agree that Trump is a Nazi - it would definitely make my life easier. He almost certainly tried to start a shooting war, and is clinically insane. Problem solved. - where do I get my social credit score bonus points? Everywhere I look, facts checkers confirm just how free and fair all the elections were, so it must be true, mustn't it? Otherwise it would be a huge conspiracy involving government, the Democratic party, the Republican party, and any number of private corporations. Wow! That would be insane.
> 
> Here's hoping the lunatics haven't just taken over the asylum. Fingers crossed reality is exactly as advertised.
> 
> @kwigly agree wholeheartedly. However, it appears to me (looking in from the outside) that reconciliation, openness, fairness etc is absolutely not on the cards. I hope I'm wrong about that, too.


How do think things could have been handled better in real terms? What should have been done differently? The rumours of vote fraud were looked at and no substantial evidence was found.


----------



## harryc

Trainee neophyte said:


> You all seem to be assuming that your facts are the correct, true, and only facts. Anything that doesn't comply with your truth must be a lie. It must be nice to be that confident about everything.
> 
> Maybe I will just roll over and agree that Trump is a Nazi - it would definitely make my life easier. He almost certainly tried to start a shooting war, and is clinically insane. Problem solved. - where do I get my social credit score bonus points? Everywhere I look, facts checkers confirm just how free and fair all the elections were, so it must be true, mustn't it? Otherwise it would be a huge conspiracy involving government, the Democratic party, the Republican party, and any number of private corporations. Wow! That would be insane.
> 
> Here's hoping the lunatics haven't just taken over the asylum. Fingers crossed reality is exactly as advertised.
> 
> @kwigly agree wholeheartedly. However, it appears to me (looking in from the outside) that reconciliation, openness, fairness etc is absolutely not on the cards. I hope I'm wrong about that, too.



You do realise how a democracy operates don’t you?

There is rules of law which if people break they are held to account because otherwise what would stop a bigger tyrant that Trump next time going even further, because there was no consequences!


----------



## Jameshow

D_W said:


> "Off topic" seems to be a concept that a large cohort can't grasp.
> 
> It'd be lovely if the moderators had a way of making the OT forums invisible to each person who complains about off topic material being in off topic forums.


Csn we talk about scrub planes please?!!!!

Cheers James


----------



## Droogs

no TN they are the only facts due to the ability of anyone who wishes to, to ascertain whether they are actually provably true. Rather than the wetdreams of some sociopathic nutters


----------



## Droogs

@Jameshow sure start a thread in the relevant *on topic section* of the forum, rather than ask in the off topic section, the way people with some common sense do apparently, though judging by the last one it will end up in the off topic bit too


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> This may come as a shock to _you_, but there is a significant number of people who feel that the election was rigged, and that the legal system then failed to give them even peremptory justice, and now their ability to speak out is being removed as fast as possible. It doesn't matter that _you_ believe they are wrong - _they_ still believe they are being beset at every turn. By disenfranchised, I meant that they feel they have had all democratic, civil options removed, rather than just losing an election. If their vote isn't counted, and their voice isn't heard - what comes next? Soap box, ballot box, bullet box? Is that your intention?
> 
> All I see is is a gleeful Left desparately trying to encourage violence, for no purpose. Why do that? Who benefits? When was the last time that a losing candidate was impeached, because he lost?
> 
> An interesting theory that I don't yet ascribe to is that the Democrats probably did rig the election, because why else all this out and out warfare on the right? If they had won honestly, they would use the immortal words of Barack Obama: "I won, you lost; get over it". As it is, the Color Revolution process requires a disorderly transition of power, so the opposition can be reviled, silenced and made illegal.



You can't help yourself, can you?

Your posts are one logical fallacy after another.

1 there is no out and out warfare on the right

2 your "I won you lost..... is a childish strawman.

3 there are a lot of people who think the election is rigged, because the president, a man of great power has gaslighted them into believing it

4 the legal system has not failed, the simple fact is republicans have made many claims of fraud, but when asked can provide zero evidence....so it's been thrown out.


----------



## Jake

All part of the firehose of falsehood.


----------



## Jameshow

Droogs said:


> @Jameshow sure start a thread in the relevant *on topic section* of the forum, rather than ask in the off topic section, the way people with some common sense do apparently, though judging by the last one it will end up in the off topic bit too


Sorry I was joking! 

I've enjoyed this thread with its insightful viewpoints!! 

Cheers James


----------



## Droogs

sorry so was I, I was trying to be flippant  about how combative the scrub thread was and people moaning about off topic stuf


----------



## mikej460

TRITON said:


> So 'Golden Dawn' isnt a brand of morning coffee then ?


I rather thought it might be Trump's bit on the side..


----------



## mikej460

Trainee neophyte said:


> And the insanity continues. Trump is now Golden Dawn, which was a tiny group of deranged silly people. This may come as a shock to you all, but virtually half of the American electorate (who actually voted), voted for Trump. Are you sure that disenfranchising half of the electorate is a good idea? Are you convinced that, if you only silence all the opposition, everything will be fine? Trump supporters are obviously misguided fools, so if we just re-educate them, we can bring them back to the fold?
> 
> "Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it”
> 
> Pol Pot believed in reduction camps, too.


Hitler convinced Germany and several other nations that his way was the right way, that was until they lost the war and people actually saw just what the Nazis did. My point is that throughout millennia people have blindly followed one man for one reason or another and often lost their lives as a result. I for one see parallels.


----------



## mikej460

Jake said:


> Instaban?


Gloria?


----------



## D_W

Jameshow said:


> Csn we talk about scrub planes please?!!!!
> 
> Cheers James



I can't believe you posted an on topic thread in the off topic forum which is like posting off topic in the on topic and certainly against the rules!!


----------



## Jelly

mikej460 said:


> Gloria?


G. L. O. R. I. A.

Gloria!

I'm going to have to listen to the whole of Land now just to get a suitable Patti Smit fix, I hope you're pleased with yourself.


----------



## Noel

Jelly said:


> G. L. O. R. I. A.
> 
> Gloria!
> 
> I'm going to have to listen to the whole of Land now just to get a suitable Patti Smit fix, I hope you're pleased with yourself.



Nah, Them.


----------



## Jake

The quality of Glorias escalated rapidly


----------



## D_W

mikej460 said:


> Hitler convinced Germany and several other nations that his way was the right way, that was until they lost the war and people actually saw just what the Nazis did. My point is that throughout millennia people have blindly followed one man for one reason or another and often lost their lives as a result. I for one see parallels.



This a bit different - one side thinks they're going to expose fraud (with some refuse in the movement who think they're just going to create chaos) in an election and be heroes. The other one had a nationwide event where they targeted jews. Fortunately, there's no real ambition behind the former, it's just throwing a tantrum and wanting to win without understanding how many idiots are out there who will really take it literally. 

I'm a bit biased about nazi apologists. There was one living down the road from my grandparents. He couldn't control himself and not peddle filth trying to tell everyone that the issue in germany was a food shortage. When a neighbor wouldn't sell her farm to him, he burned her house down. At one point when my dad was hunting with his two brothers "toobey" walked up to the fence line with an axe handle and told them he'd beat them if they got close to his property and he was just warning him (no such thing would've happened - I'm a computer operating geek, but my dad and his brothers are bad dudes and they were carrying rifles on top of that, but the old nazi was nuts). 

WE lived ten miles from that farm. Wouldn't you guess toobey ended up across the road from where my parents are, managed to make a mate out of an old widow and eventually steal her house from her. He held a gun to her head and said if she left him he'd kill her. She fled and left the house to him, anyway, not that it's a real win to get away but give up your home. One of the few people I've ever said out loud "we'd be better off if someone would've offed him instead of everyone running from him". Every time I hear about wwII being a misunderstanding from some older german on TV (and all of the talk about how they followed all of the convention rules and knew nothing about what was going on in the country), I think "I wonder if you're the most naive guy in the world, or if you're related to toobey". 

I don't know if toobey is still alive. I hope he isn't. I rarely say something like that, but that guy and the average person I've heard tell me the election was stolen aren't similar.


----------



## mikej460

D_W said:


> This a bit different - one side thinks they're going to expose fraud (with some refuse in the movement who think they're just going to create chaos) in an election and be heroes. The other one had a nationwide event where they targeted jews. Fortunately, there's no real ambition behind the former, it's just throwing a tantrum and wanting to win without understanding how many idiots are out there who will really take it literally.
> 
> I'm a bit biased about nazi apologists. There was one living down the road from my grandparents. He couldn't control himself and not peddle filth trying to tell everyone that the issue in germany was a food shortage. When a neighbor wouldn't sell her farm to him, he burned her house down. At one point when my dad was hunting with his two brothers "toobey" walked up to the fence line with an axe handle and told them he'd beat them if they got close to his property and he was just warning him (no such thing would've happened - I'm a computer operating geek, but my dad and his brothers are bad dudes and they were carrying rifles on top of that, but the old nazi was nuts).
> 
> WE lived ten miles from that farm. Wouldn't you guess toobey ended up across the road from where my parents are, managed to make a mate out of an old widow and eventually steal her house from her. He held a gun to her head and said if she left him he'd kill her. She fled and left the house to him, anyway, not that it's a real win to get away but give up your home. One of the few people I've ever said out loud "we'd be better off if someone would've offed him instead of everyone running from him". Every time I hear about wwII being a misunderstanding from some older german on TV (and all of the talk about how they followed all of the convention rules and knew nothing about what was going on in the country), I think "I wonder if you're the most naive guy in the world, or if you're related to toobey".
> 
> I don't know if toobey is still alive. I hope he isn't. I rarely say something like that, but that guy and the average person I've heard tell me the election was stolen aren't similar.


My point is that it was one man supported by a bunch of right wing fanatics that convinced more than one nation to do a lot of evil stuff. I suspect a lot of Germans (and others, including our own leaders) knew or strongly suspected what was going on much like many of the ordinary (non-fanatical) folk and fellow GOP senators who still think Trump won but will eventually deny ever suspecting anything as they slowly drift away. It will be very interesting how the FBI and IRS investigations pan out now the corporate rats are leaving the sinking ship.


----------



## D_W

Did he come out a couple of days later and say violence, looting, etc are unacceptable once he grew up a tiny bit? I get what you're saying, that you can create an influential movement and then some people will practice verisimilitude, especially if they think a little something might be in it for them. 

I'm sure on the fringe, there are people like that in the "election was stolen" movement. Most of the folks in it are regular day to day people who either believe in low probability events or don't understand probability. The bulk of that group will wise up soon. 

I really wonder if many of the reps or senators believe that or if they think it's in their political best interest. It's easier to get dopey reps in in numbers (as in house of representatives, not republicans - there are real boobs at the far end of each aisle, and they tend to be the noisiest and saying stupid things doesn't register with them...as to how stupid of things they're saying. 

Senators, there's a few loonies, but it seems like the intelligence level there is a little bit better. 

I can tell you the sentiment here in general is that nobody has tolerance for this continuing. Almost entirely across the board. That won't prevent the wingnuts maybe from having some rallies, but the state guards and national guards are on alert now and the next president is due in soon and won't be unseated.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> Did he come out a couple of days later and say violence, looting, etc are unacceptable once he grew up a tiny bit?



He got told by his lawyers to do that because of his liability if he did not, and was leaking to base about how he didn't believe any of it within a day.


----------



## fixit45

TRITON said:


> It is, and theres loads of topics relating to that in the different sections.
> This area is called 'Off Topic' therefore its not solely about wood and metal and making stuff.
> 
> You have to admit that this subject has connotations for us all, and is what you might describe as 'HOT' currently, ergo people want to talk and discuss it.





D_W said:


> "Off topic" seems to be a concept that a large cohort can't grasp.
> 
> It'd be lovely if the moderators had a way of making the OT forums invisible to each person who complains about off topic material being in off topic forums.


----------



## Jake

D_W said:


> the state guards and national guards are on alert now and the next president is due in soon and won't be unseated.



I agree with that assessment - the bigger threat is an ongoing domestic terrorism campaign / insurgency.


----------



## fixit45

I have taken the time to read most of the comments and many appear to indicate that the people commenting would stand in the street and wage war against the other. it is such an emotive subject that it tends to divide people rather than provide the opportunity for a more peaceful approach to everyone having an opinion without forcing it on another.


----------



## fixit45

D_W said:


> "Off topic" seems to be a concept that a large cohort can't grasp.
> 
> It'd be lovely if the moderators had a way of making the OT forums invisible to each person who complains about off topic material being in off topic forums.


I do understand as one of the cohorts. I am in no way involved with either side nor do I support one or the other. But off topic does not to me seem like the correct place to vent your anger directed to another. Or perhaps it should be renamed POLITICS & RELIGION.


----------



## rafezetter

D_W said:


>


DW if you are really of the viewpoint that the 2nd ammendment is absolutely fine and that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents in my lifetime is a "ZZZZ" then I'm of the view that you say after that isn't worth the paper I wipe my buttocks with. We're done here I think.


----------



## rafezetter

D_W said:


> The word justice and social equality don't mean the same thing. When someone talks about social equality, they usually mean equality of outcome, not opportunity or regulation.
> 
> I see now that you're attempting to equate the entirety of the united states to a minority of people and very recent history (perhaps even the last week or two). Not interested. We have the same constitution for over a couple of hundred years It's not going anywhere, and this movement is over soon once Trump is out of office and there isn't any real platform for him to agitate.
> 
> We'll be back to the regular news seesaw (which is people will be complaining that joe biden will make us broke with social spending and higher taxes), vs the turn that it's on right now (all of the big corporations are getting tax breaks, we're going to burn up in the environment and go broke).



"liberty and justice for all" means exactly what I said it did, not my fault you don't get it, and that modern america has bastardized it to suit "thier version" of what they think it means.

You've been living your entire life in the USA yet clearly don't even understand the precepts the constitution was based on, while screaming stuff is "against your consitutional rights" - remarkable, no wonder the American education system gets such a bad rap.


----------



## rafezetter

fixit45 said:


> I have taken the time to read most of the comments and many appear to indicate that the people commenting would stand in the street and wage war against the other. it is such an emotive subject that it tends to divide people rather than provide the opportunity for a more peaceful approach to everyone having an opinion without forcing it on another.



I wouldn't wage war on anyone with an opposing view, AS LONG AS it doesn't involve putting others into indentured servitude, aka "work or educational poverty" or involve innocent people AND CHILDREN being gunned down in schools and cinema's - however once your position either openly advocates the former, or advocates by omission of opposition, THEN I'll come for you, with everything I have - because you are part of the problem, and standing in my way to remove these threats from everyday innocent, hardworking citizens.

If you do not think this is worthy of someones time, then you are also part of the problem.

I'm not a SJW - I'm a "stop being an a-hole, using the corpses of innocent people as a ladder to success" warrior - big difference.

DW - I'm a nobody, with a small voice - I fully understand that, but I also know from bitter personal experience what is right, from what is wrong, and my moral compass rings true REGARDLESS of my personal circumstance, danger to life or financial impact (as I've mentioned and proven beyond doubt elsewhere on the forum) unlike a sickeningly large portion of humanity who's moral compass only seems to work while it's either in thier favor, or they lose nothing by following it, we call them "champagne liberals" in the UK - people who rarely, if ever, put thier money where thier mouth is, lipservice at it's worst.

I'm certain by your reaction to my post on the second ammendment and the deaths of innocents caused by it, that you cannot say the same, and therefore I can safely state you've never opposed it. There are those that would be of the opinion that if you do not oppose a thing, you are are advocating it, thus what damage that "thing" causes, you are tainted with some of that blame and burden. When it comes to the deaths of innocents in streets and schools, you can't sit on the sidelines, lest one day the bullet comes for one of your own.

I don't condone HOW those protestors did what they did, or the reason - but you can't complain because they acted in a way that's written into your own declaration of independence (go and read it again you might learn something), and a similar enactment under a similar guise was how your country was born.


----------



## Jake

fixit45 said:


> I have taken the time to read most of the comments and many appear to indicate that the people commenting would stand in the street and wage war against the other. it is such an emotive subject that it tends to divide people rather than provide the opportunity for a more peaceful approach to everyone having an opinion without forcing it on another.



You don't seem to like debate. 

I don't think most people take it personally even if it gets a bit emotive and one-to-one. Maybe excepting the few with massive chips on their shoulders, but they seem to get their kicks out of it in their own way.


----------



## dzj

Trainee neophyte said:


> So Trump = Hitler?




At least Godwin's Law is alive and well.


----------



## D_W

rafezetter said:


> DW if you are really of the viewpoint that the 2nd ammendment is absolutely fine and that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents in my lifetime is a "ZZZZ" then I'm of the view that you say after that isn't worth the paper I wipe my buttocks with. We're done here I think.



We care about outside opinions about the second amendment about as much as you care about americans constantly asking why people give money to the royal family (which makes absolutely no sense to 99% of americans). It's in the constitution, the supreme court has weighed in on it and if someone wants to do something about it, we have a legal process to do that (to ratify a following amendment that nullifies a prior). Other than that, people wanting to work around the legal system or take shortcuts sounds similar to me to trying to find legal ways to overturn a just election.

It comes up so often on Australian and English forums that it causes me to nod off. Unfortunately, that seems to drive overly emotional people who think their opinion has more weight than someone else's (because they're more emotional) to get even more emotional. I try to avoid people like that.

(Note, I do not own any guns. I have in the past and enjoyed reloading and target shooting - hunting a bit less (who wants to sit in the cold for a week?). I sold them to buy tools. The last I heard, about 10% of gun deaths in the US aren't drug/gang related or suicides. That leaves about 6k per year that aren't drug/gang related, but that doesn't separate out from that amount homicides related to other criminal activity - the answer to that is pretty simple - don't get involved in criminal activity). 

What's the final number (not related to other criminal activity)? Maybe 3000? I don't know. According to google, firearms homicides are down 40% since 1993 (nominally) at the same time that the population is up 32%. That works out to the per capita rate being less than half of 30 years ago. This wouldn't be popular to advertise on TV. 





__





FastStats


FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.




www.cdc.gov





If you're looking at causes of death and actual rational threats to personal safety, reach out and help someone who is depressed (see number 10 on the list). If you're in the US and think that you have a chance of getting involved in crossfire, then you should never ride in a car, rush down steps or walk on ice. Add a half hour of exercise and improve your diet. Encourage someone else to. I don't know anyone who has gotten shot. The lady across the road from me slipped on her steps when I was a kid, knocked herself out and died, only to be encased in an inch of ice from an ice storm later that day (her steps were hidden from the road by privacy shrubs). It was memorable because the state police took dozens of pictures and the gleaming layer of ice caused their giant crime scene camera to flash light lightning. I'm not looking to outlaw steps, but I've seen them be deadly. In 44 years (which includes rural and urban areas, including walking through unsafe areas at night), I've never seen a gun brandished (never even seen a policeman unholster a pistol in the city despite waiting at a bus stop that goes two directions - my direction, and then one that goes toward the ghetto. I _have_ seen police get very rough tossing around bums downtown who are high or drunk and passed out - I'm guessing they get tired of doing that and already know the people). 

One day while waiting for a bus, I did hear the sound of someone a half block away hitting the street after they jumped out of an apartment window. It's a sickening sound that I won't forget. There was nothing but a single line on the digital edition of our paper the next day (but you had to use the search box to find it and know exactly where it had happened), and it was only there for a short time. Can you imagine if it had been a shooting city center? It'd have been in the news for a week, giving the false sense that the shooting lasted a week while the rest of reality was ignored. 

Can you imagine how much more good would be done by volunteering to care for elderly and prevent accidents and death due to neglect or unsafe living conditions? (I'll bet that's a big part of #3 and you could prevent 5 times as many deaths as otherwise non-criminal firearms homicides by finding ways to reduce accidents).


----------



## kwigly

I'm like a fish, rising to the bait.....
rafezetter's line of reasoning on guns would also have us banning the private ownership of cars, because of their maiming and killing of "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and their "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".
...also alcohol,
...maybe knives,
...definitely ban protest marches, (also attending football matches)
...perhaps just get rid of all free choice, to prevent the threat of mayhem from "fringe" elements and from ordinary people's bad choices ?

Despite the risks, I prefer the idea of free choice, (within a framework of laws so that law breakers can be prosecuted), and the freedom to protest without censorship if I think laws are not being enforced, (or if I think laws need to be added/changed).
While the media representation of American life has aspects that seem obnoxious to me, the few days I've spent in that country have been very pleasant, and I don't have a vote there to object to their free choices.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

OK guys - I would like to waive the white flag: you're right and I am wrong. Trump = bad. 

How far does this go? Is every single thing he complained about over the last 4 years also nonsense? There was never any illegal fbi investigation in 2016? Hilliary server was never an issue? Strock and Comey, the Awen brothers (remember them?), the entire 4 year collusion of the state against the White House, illegal immigrants were never free to enter and vote, and on and on - Russian collusion and vote rigging, Russian hacking, for that matter? Hang on, I'm mixing my delusions - everything Russian is democrat proven. Sorry - it's so hard to keep track of it all.

Apart from the obviously real evil Russian hackers, has Trump and half the USA spent the last 4 years in delusional lala land? Is everything false?


----------



## D_W

Trainee neophyte said:


> OK guys - I would like to waive the white flag: you're right and I am wrong. Trump = bad.
> 
> How far does this go? Is every single thing he complained about over the last 4 years also nonsense? There was never any illegal fbi investigation in 2016? Hilliary server was never an issue? Strock and Comey, the Awen brothers (remember them?), the entire 4 year collusion of the state against the White House, illegal immigrants were never free to enter and vote, and on and on - Russian collusion and vote rigging, Russian hacking, for that matter? Hang on, I'm mixing my delusions - everything Russian is democrat proven. Sorry - it's so hard to keep track of it all.
> 
> Apart from the obviously real evil Russian hackers, has Trump and half the USA spent the last 4 years in delusional lala land? Is everything false?



life at the front door here is pretty good, as are actual relations from person to person. My neighborhood is a delight, and we're half and half politically, perhaps (I have no idea how many people who are independent like me - it allows me to stay out of arguments, but on top of that, I feel no need to tell everyone in the neighborhood. I couldn't find a good "get out the don't vote" for other abstainers. Maybe I should've started a non-profit extolling the virtues of the intentional no-vote). 

I predict in a couple of weeks, most of the rational world won't hear much more about trump, but MSNBC will have stories that they have to walk back (or won't), and Fox News will have people obsessed with Hunter Biden and the Ukraine again. I won't turn any of it on. You should see just how pleasant actual reality/life on the ground is here without being told it's not.


----------



## Jake

Trainee neophyte said:


> OK guys - I would like to waive the white flag: you're right and I am wrong. Trump = bad.
> 
> How far does this go? Is every single thing he complained about over the last 4 years also nonsense? There was never any illegal fbi investigation in 2016? Hilliary server was never an issue? Strock and Comey, the Awen brothers (remember them?), the entire 4 year collusion of the state against the White House, illegal immigrants were never free to enter and vote, and on and on - Russian collusion and vote rigging, Russian hacking, for that matter? Hang on, I'm mixing my delusions - everything Russian is democrat proven. Sorry - it's so hard to keep track of it all.
> 
> Apart from the obviously real evil Russian hackers, has Trump and half the USA spent the last 4 years in delusional lala land? Is everything false?



Yes.


----------



## Droogs

The point Rafezetter is putting forward is that unlike a rifle which has as its main function (supposedly) it's use in hunting to put food on the table, whereas a handgun whether it be flintlock pistol, revolver or semi automatic pistol or automatic weapons such as the various types of machine guns and machine pistols are designed and manufactured with one intent and purpose, to kill or maim human beings. The items mentioned by kwigly are also manufactured without the express purpose of killing people. That is the difference. By all means have weapons available to the populace but don't try to hide their true pupose.

I am very pro hunting (not the horse and doggie kind; that's a load of upper class cowpat) and have a keen interest in handguns but would rather live with the UKs rules than those of the US even where it severely restricts my ability to own the things I would love to have. I have suffered financially due to the tight rule in the UK when they were brought in and lost a large collection but I would rather that than the events that are far too frequent in the US


----------



## billw

D_W said:


> When a neighbor wouldn't sell her farm to him, he burned her house down.



Well, that sounds like a perfectly rational response to me


----------



## billw

Jake said:


> I agree with that assessment - the bigger threat is an ongoing domestic terrorism campaign / insurgency.



The security services in the US have said for quite a while that the biggest threat domestically is right-wing terrorism. Cue a lot of headlines about groups of "mentally ill" white people.


----------



## Jacob

kwigly said:


> I'm like a fish, rising to the bait.....
> rafezetter's line of reasoning on guns would also have us banning the private ownership of cars, because of their maiming and killing of "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and their "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".
> ...also alcohol,
> ...maybe knives,
> ...definitely ban protest marches, (also attending football matches)
> ...perhaps just get rid of all free choice, to prevent the threat of mayhem from "fringe" elements and from ordinary people's bad choices ?
> 
> Despite the risks, I prefer the idea of free choice, (within a framework of laws so that law breakers can be prosecuted), and the freedom to protest without censorship if I think laws are not being enforced, (or if I think laws need to be added/changed).
> While the media representation of American life has aspects that seem obnoxious to me, the few days I've spent in that country have been very pleasant, and I don't have a vote there to object to their free choices.


There's a huge difference between guns and the other items on your list.
Guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing or wounding people, efficiently, from a distance and in large numbers. They have no other function. 
In turn this means they are only of interest to people who entertain the idea of killing other people.


----------



## Jameshow

A gun is as varied as a tank compared to a unimog both are all terrain vehicles but one is built solely for war whilst the other for agriculture / forestry work..... 

Cheers James


----------



## selectortone

kwigly said:


> I'm like a fish, rising to the bait.....
> rafezetter's line of reasoning on guns would also have us banning the private ownership of cars, because of their maiming and killing of "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and their "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".


The last time I bought a car, its suitability for killing people wasn't one of the criteria on my list of desirable features. I'm fairly sure that it isn't a feature when cars are in the design process either.


----------



## kwigly

All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage. 
The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".


----------



## Jacob

kwigly said:


> All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage.
> The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".


So many innocent uses! Why do you put 'AND CHILDREN' in capitals?
How would you control them to prevent SCHOOL AND OTHER MASS SHOOTINGS? Do you think it was OK for the various recent protests to have people BREAKING IN to Capitol Hill CARRYING MILITARY WEAPONS?
Or are these and the other 30,000 gun deaths per year in USA, just the price of the freedom for other harmless people to shoot at paper targets and clay pigeons?


----------



## TRITON

kwigly said:


> All the people I know who have guns (outside of police and military), got them for the sport of target shooting (paper targets, clay birds), or got them for shooting wild animals (hunting, use on the trap line, control of "nuisance" animals). As far as I know, the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors, the same as the killing capacity of their private cars is not a purchasing factor. Owners of both guns and cars are required to pass tests, be licensed to use them, and follow various laws in ownership/usage.
> The laws are determined through the democratic process, and I expect they will evolve according to the population's perceptions of the threat to "innocent people AND CHILDREN", and the "threat to everyday innocent, hardworking citizens".



Sorry bud, thats quite a simplistic view, and "the fact that guns could also kill people isn't one of their purchasing factors" is downright nonsense.
Bought it because they like playing with them ?, or target shooting, and yup some do like target shooting, but their primary design and use is to kill people with. And the vast majority are buying for defence.

Accepting that they are for their own and family defence from other gun owners, so they acknowledge at least that they are there to kill any threat.

The car comparison is also rather simplistic, which is me being kind, and in truth is also total nonsense.


----------



## billw

selectortone said:


> The last time I bought a car, its suitability for killing people wasn't one of the criteria on my list of desirable features. I'm fairly sure that it isn't a feature when cars are in the design process either.


Indeed I'm pretty sure that car manufacturers make them to be as safe as possible in the event of collision - hence why bonnet mounted insignia were banned.


----------



## mikej460

Trainee neophyte said:


> Apart from the obviously real evil Russian hackers, has Trump and half the USA spent the last 4 years in delusional lala land? Is everything false?


In English parlance 'it is deeply regrettable'..


----------



## gregmcateer

In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.

But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by 
a. Rude words
b. Comments about guns!


----------



## Jacob

gregmcateer said:


> In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
> It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.
> 
> But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
> a. Rude words
> b. Comments about guns!



Very funny and bang on the nail.
My limited experiences of guns:
as kids playing around on local golf course with an air rifle - golf ball target - lucky shot the pellet bounced right back and hit me between the eyes hard. Could have lost an eye instead
bonfire night party at a local farm - drunks kids leaning out of upstairs window pointing shot gun at the crowd - farmer goes mad shouts his head off- he kept it loaded in his bedroom (not in his safe the t**t) and could have been a nasty incident
school cadets - live round found in practice empty shells, hole in roof, nobody hurt
local antique pistol enthusiast had a bit of a downer - drove off to Wales and shot himself dead in his car with a Colt. Horrible mess apparently.


----------



## billw

gregmcateer said:


> In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
> It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.
> 
> But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
> a. Rude words
> b. Comments about guns!




"I keep my slaves locked in a safe"    

Funniest thing I've watched in months.


----------



## billw

I've only known one person in the UK who owned a gun. He shot his wife dead.


----------



## gregmcateer

Glad to have been of service, gents.


----------



## NormanB

D_W said:


> it's all fun and games at the "great trespass" event. If you go to actual courts in the US and make clown defenses like that, the court is insulted and any leniency you may have had is gone.
> 
> One of the problems here is actually that - that the court will often offer individuals a plea that's a tiny fraction of the max potential punishment. People who are otherwise innocent will take the plea upon legal advice that it's a safer bet than challenging based on the truth. The reason for that is simple - it takes almost no time to write a plea and keep the court docket clear for cases that need to actually appear, but it incents a lot of people who didn't do anything to be dumped in the same category as people who did and who are getting off easy on the plea.
> 
> In the event that a prosecutor really wants to get someone, then a plea isn't offered and the fight is on. Most of the trespassers here will be offered a fine and that's it (which is as it should be if someone was just flowing with the crowd and doing nothing violent). In most protests in the US, people assembling illegally usually aren't arrested, but someone taped inciting violence or carrying it out will be. We had a BLM protest here (that I didn't walk through) that did get violent, and my neighbor (a cameraman) was blindsided, knocked to the ground, knocked out and kicked. Literally saved by people who were watching a livestream from a local office and who ran out when they saw him getting beaten. At least one police car was burned and there was a fair amount of violence, but there weren't that many arrests.
> 
> So I hope we're spared of the nonsense after this that most of the capitol trespassers who did nothing other than go with the flow and then go out don't get arrested. It's generally the case for all protests here. Notable folks like the guy with the tadoos and horns, though, arrest came quickly. Same with anyone seen vandalizing or carrying things with them that they _didn't own. _





NormanB said:


> Be interesting to see those arrested from the ‘invasion’ turn up in front of the judge and the defence lawyer mounts the defence they were loyally following the orders of their President, who has not been arrested for an indictable offence so the order must have been legal and their responsibility is diminished.


Here is one example of what I was alluding to:


----------



## Jacob

NormanB said:


> Here is one example of what I was alluding to:



A variation on "only obeying orders"


----------



## Jacob

Just listening to Desert Island Discs. Samantha Power former UN ambassador under Obama.
Strange sensation of listening to an American politician who is intelligent, humane, imaginative, articulate, instead of the moronic Trump family and small-minded self-serving mobsters we are used to.
Sudden sense of how s**t things have been under the orange man. 
And how better things could be.
Cheered me up!

BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Samantha Power


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Just listening to Desert Island Discs. Samantha Power former UN ambassador under Obama.
> Strange sensation of listening to an American politician who is intelligent, humane, imaginative, articulate, instead of the moronic Trump family and small-minded self-serving mobsters we are used to.
> Sudden sense of how s**t things have been under the orange man.
> And how better things could be.
> Cheered me up!
> 
> BBC Radio 4 - Desert Island Discs, Samantha Power


She did the "humanitarian interventions " in Syria, Libya, Yemen etc. I suppose we can expect a lot more of that with a new democrat president- _peaceful_ carpet bombing this time.

On a happier note, she also once referred to Hillary Clinton as a monster, and is still breathing, so on balance I think she's OK.


----------



## D_W

NormanB said:


> Here is one example of what I was alluding to:




That defense was dreamed up before the second day, though. I'd say if you have no defense, you go in with something like that ("I really did think we were authorized despite the fact that the police were literally telling us that we weren't the whole time!")

One thing is true in the US justice system - the defense you use in court will have nothing to do with reality if your defense attorney tells you that his defense is way better than your defense.

These people will be very unlucky if they find an angry partisan judge. I think they'd have been better off paying the trespassing fine and proving they didn't do any destruction themselves (I believe this is usually $50 or $150 or so).


----------



## D_W

Trainee neophyte said:


> On a happier note, she also once referred to Hillary Clinton as a monster, and is still breathing, so on balance I think she's OK.



Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren't really that much different in terms of personal qualities. I've listened to people talking about Trump (who knew him before he became president). Apparently, he was a combination of (or one or the other) an affable fellow who was a little off, or someone who had a crooked sense of humor where he only laughed at stuff that wasn't particularly funny (like someone else's misfortune). I recall Adam Carolla talking about his mother saying how dangerous Trump was and Carolla knew him personally and more or said "no, he's not evil". And Adam's mother said "you don't know him" (which is apparently what she normally says to him), to which he replied "you can't actually say that about people who I know". 

Adam's not stupid, and has since more or less said "I think whatever has happened to Trump during running for President and being President, I don't think he's the same guy I knew any longer", and his comments about riling people up weren't favorable to Trump. 

I actually have _talked _to people who have worked with or for Hillary and every one of them has said that they're working for her cause, but that she's an angry rotten awful person to the core. 

She and Trump are both pure ambition -at least that's how I see them. It's not a coincidence that those types of people get to the Presidency. Obama is one of the more arrogant people I've ever heard talk, and without any real accomplishments that I'm aware of other than being groomed to be President and following advisors. His response to people in the US when they didn't like his selling of globalist policy to china (increasing the income divide, increasing barriers to entry, etc) was that "he didn't do enough to explain the policies to Americans and that's the only reason the majority didn't like some of his policies". 

Translate that "they're just too dumb to understand what I'm doing" (the reason that people hated what he was doing is because they understood precisely what it was). G.W. Bush had shades of competence, intermittently, and Bill Clinton was entirely competent, but flippant about some idealistic things. I really could take or leave the last four Presidents in general. 

Some of the core things that Trump has done, I'm a big fan of:
* after obama couldn't get the bump stock moved to Class III NFA devices, Trump just did an end around re: the legal discussion of what constitutes automatic fire and what doesn't and demanded it be moved to class III
* no significant wars (or spending or disabilities related to them)
* easing of a lot of regulatory overhead that squashes small business

It's not hard to list the things that I'm not a big fan of (ignorance about covid, rubbish stirring, sitting on twitter all night, ignoring reasonable advisors, refusing to admit he was wrong about something to move forward). The condition of the country as of his term was tailor made for a two-term President. Reasonable handling of covid and getting off of twitter and presenting a throwback ideal about freedom and room to achieve would've had him winning in a landslide. I can't stand to listen to him talk, but I couldn't stand listening to Obama talk, either. There aren't many politicians I can stand to hear. I loved listening to Reagan talk - but he was really good at it - and could make you forget you were listening to a politician.


----------



## D_W

Separately, I recall my grandmother's generation (she was just a little younger than reagan....and as an FDR depression survivor she HATED reagan), but she collected jokes like reagan, and after you got through the initial pleasantries, she would almost always tell a joke, and then move on to whatever the bears of the day were.

I have to admit I can't remember anyone doing that in the last 15 years - we've all become cynical, and I'm sure if you told jokes now (especially among family members) that someone would be "too smart" to think they're funny and start an argument.

The same thing is true of politics. It's like 1/3rd of the population has aspergers, oppositional disorder and anticipatory anxiety at all times (but for most, it's selective when politics comes up) and the chance of a group of people taking things for what they are (instead of getting overly literal about something that's being used as an example or as humor) is almost 100%.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Hilliary Clinton. One of the most delightful, caring people in the world.





Arkancide


----------



## gregmcateer

D_W said:


> Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aren't really that much different in terms of personal qualities. I've listened to people talking about Trump (who knew him before he became president). Apparently, he was a combination of (or one or the other) an affable fellow who was a little off, or someone who had a crooked sense of humor where he only laughed at stuff that wasn't particularly funny (like someone else's misfortune). I recall Adam Carolla talking about his mother saying how dangerous Trump was and Carolla knew him personally and more or said "no, he's not evil". And Adam's mother said "you don't know him" (which is apparently what she normally says to him), to which he replied "you can't actually say that about people who I know".
> 
> Adam's not stupid, and has since more or less said "I think whatever has happened to Trump during running for President and being President, I don't think he's the same guy I knew any longer", and his comments about riling people up weren't favorable to Trump.
> 
> I actually have _talked _to people who have worked with or for Hillary and every one of them has said that they're working for her cause, but that she's an angry rotten awful person to the core.
> 
> She and Trump are both pure ambition -at least that's how I see them. It's not a coincidence that those types of people get to the Presidency. Obama is one of the more arrogant people I've ever heard talk, and without any real accomplishments that I'm aware of other than being groomed to be President and following advisors. His response to people in the US when they didn't like his selling of globalist policy to china (increasing the income divide, increasing barriers to entry, etc) was that "he didn't do enough to explain the policies to Americans and that's the only reason the majority didn't like some of his policies".
> 
> Translate that "they're just too dumb to understand what I'm doing" (the reason that people hated what he was doing is because they understood precisely what it was). G.W. Bush had shades of competence, intermittently, and Bill Clinton was entirely competent, but flippant about some idealistic things. I really could take or leave the last four Presidents in general.
> 
> Some of the core things that Trump has done, I'm a big fan of:
> * after obama couldn't get the bump stock moved to Class III NFA devices, Trump just did an end around re: the legal discussion of what constitutes automatic fire and what doesn't and demanded it be moved to class III
> * no significant wars (or spending or disabilities related to them)
> * easing of a lot of regulatory overhead that squashes small business
> 
> It's not hard to list the things that I'm not a big fan of (ignorance about covid, rubbish stirring, sitting on twitter all night, ignoring reasonable advisors, refusing to admit he was wrong about something to move forward). The condition of the country as of his term was tailor made for a two-term President. Reasonable handling of covid and getting off of twitter and presenting a throwback ideal about freedom and room to achieve would've had him winning in a landslide. I can't stand to listen to him talk, but I couldn't stand listening to Obama talk, either. There aren't many politicians I can stand to hear. I loved listening to Reagan talk - but he was really good at it - and could make you forget you were listening to a politician.



Whilst our experience of all your presidents is from afar, other than visits, of course, we do get to read and hear from commentators, analysts and real journalists who research, rather than just posting carp they've read on QA or fb. (Not suggesting you fall into that at all).

As I was interested to see why Obama didn't achieve some or all of things he said he wanted to achieve in office, I thought reading a bit might help. Part of this has been his new book. Clearly it is written by the protaganist himself, so he is inevitably 'biased', however I would recommend an open minded read. 

He certainly doesn't come across as arrogant and unless he has just made up a load of pre- and during office stuff, (unlikely due to the likelihhod of litigation), he most certainly is not arrogant. He clearly wasn't just primed for office and plopped into place, (I seem to remember some fairly robust efforts by a certain Mrs H Clinton).

Once in office, (just as the banking crisis of 2008 was beginning to really bite), the intensification of partisanship in Congress made passage of policy into law incredibly difficult, if not impossible. (Not a new matter - indeed he discusses some of the history of earlier bipartisanship).

His face to face visits with injured service personnel is telling regarding his compassion and lack of arrogance, IMHO.

I'm not advocating his policies, or presidency, I'm just saying I genuinely think the arogance accusation is off the mark. I won't comment on his successor regarding this characteristic


----------



## D_W

Wait, there's lots of journalistic info, but all is quoted from his book? All presidents visit injured service members. It's part of the job. Gw bush before Obama was head and shoulders above on this, though, inviting them with him to participate with him in daily routines, like biking and jogging without media coverage, not just the short typical press covered meetings. 

Obama used "i" in presidential speeches constantly and spoke in platitudes almost entirely, which is something you'd do if you felt above actually dealing with any details. His comment about not understanding his legislative efforts was directed to people who didn't like his globalist legislative efforts, citizens, not Congress. The reason there was an oppositional legislature in the first place was due to a distaste for legislation easing transfer of business from here to China and comments to people who lost their jobs that they should get a better one, anyway, because they'd just magically appear. As if they're too unqualified to know whether or not they liked the job they lost.

He's polished and careful about his image, but like Hillary, felt entitled and focused on talking about himself.


----------



## Jameshow

I watched the interview last night and he didn't seem arrogant tbh. 

Makes you wonder at the sense of the 2 term rule! 

Then trump makes you sure of the sense two term rule!!! 

I'm republican leaning btw! 

Cheers James


----------



## Jameshow

D_W said:


> Wait, there's lots of journalistic info, but all is quoted from his book? All presidents visit injured service members. It's part of the job. Gw bush before Obama was head and shoulders above on this, though, inviting them with him to participate with him in daily routines, like biking and jogging without media coverage, not just the short typical press covered meetings.
> 
> Obama used "i" in presidential speeches constantly and spoke in platitudes almost entirely, which is something you'd do if you felt above actually dealing with any details. His comment about not understanding his legislative efforts was directed to people who didn't like his globalist legislative efforts, citizens, not Congress. The reason there was an oppositional legislature in the first place was due to a distaste for legislation easing transfer of business from here to China and comments to people who lost their jobs that they should get a better one, anyway, because they'd just magically appear. As if they're too unqualified to know whether or not they liked the job they lost.
> 
> He's polished and careful about his image, but like Hillary, felt entitled and focused on talking about himself.



Good points he didn't have an answer to the rust belt issues which as he alluded t, which are the real issues in the USA the disparity between the interior and the coastal cities.... 

Cheers James


----------



## billw

Well good to watch Trump lie for one last time before he vanishes into his own moronic little world.


----------



## D_W

Jameshow said:


> Good points he didn't have an answer to the rust belt issues which as he alluded t, which are the real issues in the USA the disparity between the interior and the coastal cities....
> 
> Cheers James



There was just a lack of practical action other than creating a regulatory structure that only really large businesses could navigate. Unfortunately, the new appointees for the incoming administration share a lot in common - animosity toward business, which leads to a whole lot of compliance cost (overhead that doesn't benefit consumers or shareholders) and barriers to entry. 

The solution offered here was to throw a bunch of federal money at "green jobs" that were dead in the water, even with assistance. Like solar panel manufacturing, etc. We're behind China in that with no hope of having any kind of economic sustainability without making the federal government the purchaser of the product (which mostly didn't happen) - and that's just cronyism. 

The health care bill that we got did nothing to control costs here ,which is a real problem, but it did take options away from people who just wanted catastrophic coverage (usually small business owners) and then fined people who dumped their coverage instead of buying much more expensive coverage they were never stuck with before. 

I think trump has a simplistic view of everything, but one thing he pushed for was publishing of costs of various procedures so that someone who had more than one option could choose where they would get medical procedures done. This is fought against heavily because insurers and health plans generally want to have gobs of arrangements that are disadvantageous to other players, and the last thing they want to do is publish a price that can be seen by anyone. The situation as it is leads to things like $150 out of pocket for a private covid test or insured arrangements where a patient has a large deductible and their insurer agrees to 5-10 times as high of a fee for a covid test. The sentiment is "well, the insurer will just pay it". Not if a participant hasn't met their deductible - they will. If a facility has your insurance information on file, it is almost impossible to get the cash price. Unwinding a lot of this kind of thing makes it difficult to publish prices, but rather than making an academic argument about it, trump just demanded it (I doubt he cares or would spend the time to navigate the academic reason). I would imagine that requirement will be unwound fairly quickly and quietly by the incoming administration.


----------



## D_W

Jameshow said:


> I watched the interview last night and he didn't seem arrogant tbh.
> Makes you wonder at the sense of the 2 term rule!
> Then trump makes you sure of the sense two term rule!!!
> I'm republican leaning btw!
> Cheers James



He's a good interview - just nothing of substance and not real deep on solving problems. He always had his interviews tailored and the questions curated so that he would look good (hillary probably did the same thing). I don't think trump is wise enough to do something like that and it ended up at least in one case where he left an interview and then tweeted, which is unusual behavior for a president. 

Obama's legislative efforts were a combination of nonsensical stupidity (like no support of some industries that were marginally profitable or close, and regionally important, but huge grants toward new groups with no chance of surviving - like trying to manufacture solar panels in NY and michigan), or other efforts that looked like they were written by goldman sachs and given to advisors to make it easier to make things in cheap markets and sell them in the US market paying as little as possible to anyone domestically and getting the highest amount out of them. 

The pot stirring with russia for the last year wasn't a great idea. The last thing we want is to go back to the 50s-70s with proxy wars all over the place. 

I hoped for the best from Obama, but we didn't get anything in return. I hoped that Trump would be cut and dried and behave like a president, but then he couldn't do that either. So who knows what's next. I would imagine there will be backlash in the mid term elections against biden's policies, but nobody has a clue what his policies would be because just like the last election, trump got elected rebelling against obama and hillary, and biden got elected due to trump backlash. 

Being realistic, the only reason biden is even president is because obama needed a VP candidate who would collect northeast democratic votes, and hillary would've probably been first choice with name recognition in washington and as a NY senator, but being president with a clinton VP may increase mortality risk. for folks not in the US, if you're from chicago, you need to collect someone who will be able to get the northeast vote, and biden was a lifelong northeast senator with almost nothing notable in his wake (which means nothing to campaign against, but good regional name recognition). The only thing anyone really knows about him is a plagiarism scandal (he's part of our recent ongoing tradition of presidents who graduated low in their class and who didn't do much work), and his desire to make off color jokes (like rubbing elbows at a fund raiser and telling two indian american people that there are lots of indian constituents in his state because there are a lot of donut shops and they own them-that was actually recorded by cspan, etc).


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> Well good to watch Trump lie for one last time before he vanishes into his own moronic little world.



Won't be sad to stop hearing about him.


----------



## Jameshow

Disappointed he didn't pardon Joe Exotic thou.....!

Cheers James


----------



## RobinBHM

gregmcateer said:


> In an effort to lighten the mood, I thought I'd post this link to a very funny comedian call Jim Jefferies.
> It is however, his sketch about gun control. It will almost certainly annoy some, but may also amuse some of the annoyed - as he observes.
> 
> But I do think it is worth a watch. In two parts, second suggested as first ends, IIRC. Apologies in advance to anyone offended by
> a. Rude words
> b. Comments about guns!




I've watched this loads of times, its both hilarious and really gets to the heart of the gun issue.

For me Jeffries makes 2 points that chime with me:
'I hate these Bulls hit arguments about reasons to own a gun.....there is only one reason: "I like guns, don't take off me".....it's not great argument, but it's all you've got.

The other point is:

'That's the thing about crazy people, they don't know their crazy.....that's what's makes them crazy'


----------



## John Brown

Are you still here, D_W?
What you say may well be true in regard to Hilary, but Trump must surely be in a class of his own. As someone said, not only the worst president ever, but a truly nasty person.
I'm sure you enjoy your soapbox position as an American. I have an American wife and 5 American brothers in law, and we talk every Sunday, so I have some insight.


----------



## Jacob

John Brown said:


> Are you still here, D_W?
> What you say may well be true in regard to Hilary, but Trump must surely be in a class of his own. As someone said, not only the worst president ever, but a truly nasty person.
> I'm sure you enjoy your soapbox position as an American. I have an American wife and 5 American brothers in law, and we talk every Sunday, so I have some insight.


Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, etc.etc. for better or worse, in spite of failings and weaknesses, do look and sound like normal human beings, unlike the weird Trump line-up of mobsters, lunatics and mutants!


----------



## D_W

John Brown said:


> Are you still here, D_W?
> What you say may well be true in regard to Hilary, but Trump must surely be in a class of his own. As someone said, not only the worst president ever, but a truly nasty person.
> I'm sure you enjoy your soapbox position as an American. I have an American wife and 5 American brothers in law, and we talk every Sunday, so I have some insight.



Trump was handed a pretty great situation - people upset about globalization policy, one energy or industry related project after another that got hung up, a strong market with low interest rates, and relatively little military conflict. 

He dropped the ball at every step and chose to fight with everyone like an infant instead. There are a few things he did do that will be forgotten (the bump stock, the push for medical cost clarity, etc), but how could they even be noticed? You can't do one good out of ten, then act like a twit and expect any credit. 

If he was even a mediocre president, he'd have been able to win in a landslide. 

There are definitely more liberal people than me here who will cheer things like the immediate stopping of the keystone pipeline (which I think is a shame for both the US and canada) and who want us to cede some of our rights to a larger global government (including perhaps paying some kind of personal tax toward such). I'm not in that group. More of the classic american but see through what often happens. Classic meaning I want low barriers to entry to the market for small business owners who can sometimes become innovative large business owners. I want care of the disabled and indigent (and incentives for personal responsibility for anyone not in that group), etc. We never actually get that, though. We get gigantic omnibus bills that may have one good thing in them and 10 add-ons slid in, and nobody has any sense of fiscal responsibility or problem solving. 

There will be plenty who work at universities, etc, who never have to consider their contribution or production who just love the idea of Joe and things like canceling the keystone pipeline. When that type of person makes it to office, they're Obama. But what's the realistic other side of it? GW bush? the other side of pro-wrestling promotion hates GW, and I don't hate anyone, but I see the fiscal irresponsibility and overuse of the military and it provides nothing for us and leaves something in its wake that requires constant maintenance.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I've watched this loads of times, its both hilarious and really gets to the heart of the gun issue.
> 
> For me Jeffries makes 2 points that chime with me:
> 'I hate these Bulls hit arguments about reasons to own a gun.....there is only one reason: "I like guns, don't take off me".....it's not great argument, but it's all you've got.
> 
> The other point is:
> 
> 'That's the thing about crazy people, they don't know their crazy.....that's what's makes them crazy'



There may not be truly rural remote areas left in England. In the US, those areas make sense owning a gun for more than just want. Both from two legged predators, and for dangerous nature. But the argument "nobody really needs one" is a false shift. The constitution provides the right. The supreme court has ruled on it. You can amend the amendment by legal process - it's not an "i want" argument. 

Nobody needs vacations or large cars, either. Or to be 400 pounds.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Clintons, Obamas, Bushes, etc.etc. for better or worse, in spite of failings and weaknesses, do look and sound like normal human beings, unlike the weird Trump line-up of mobsters, lunatics and mutants!



Take the clintons out of there and I'm on board. I think obama and the bushes are decent human beings. The clintons are a political charade. There is no wake of people used or stepped on for gain behind obama and the bushes. Just my opinion. The clintons are perhaps better suited to the 1950s or1960s etc when you can curate an image of yourself and the media won't publish anything to the contrary.


----------



## TRITON

billw said:


> Well good to watch Trump lie for one last time before he vanishes into his own moronic little world.


His world now will be the web, and his reputation will be similar to that of David Ike. He'll attract the same level of individual as David Ike.

Maybe in the future like OJ, he'll eventually mess up big time and without support or power, he'll end up in pokey.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> Both from two legged predators, and for dangerous nature. But the argument "nobody really needs one" is a false shift



Guns are really much use for security in domestic situations. 

Nobody really needs a gun, in 2019 15,000 deaths 30,000 injured....on balance elimating guns wouldn't lead to many deaths from animals or two legged predators.


The reality in America is that gun ownership is a hobby, people go to gun conventions. 

Nobody needs high powered guns.



D_W said:


> Nobody needs vacations or large cars, either. Or to be 400 pounds


None of those are high powered weapons capable of killing people, I think you understand there's no equivalence.


----------



## Jonm

Days before the invasion the press were reporting that Washington DC mayor, Muriel Bowser had called up the National Guard in preparation for the Trump rally which co-incided with Congress meeting on Wednesday 6th Jan to affirm Joe Biden’s victory.

here are some links to the reports
CBS News 4 Jan








D.C. National Guard to activate hundreds of troops for pro-Trump demonstration


Thousands of Trump supporters are expected to protest the election results this week.




www.cbsnews.com





Independent 4 Jan








National Guard activated ahead of pro-Trump march in Washington DC


Mayor calls in troops and cites two previous pro-Trump marches for causing ‘violence and criminal activity’




www.independent.co.uk





The risk was known and preparations were made. The question is, where we’re the National Guard. Did someone call them off? Did the police and National guard decide to support Trump? Were the numbers needed underestimated? Who knows but I suspect that Trump had a hand in it somewhere, hopefully we will find out in due course.


----------



## mikej460

gregmcateer said:


> As I was interested to see why Obama didn't achieve some or all of things he said he wanted to achieve in office, I thought reading a bit might help.


My understanding is that he couldn't get most of his objectives past the republican senate. I like him as a statesman even now, but I suspect he wasn't the shrewdest of politicians despite his ongoing popularity and serving two terms.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Guns are really much use for security in domestic situations.
> 
> Nobody really needs a gun, in 2019 15,000 deaths 30,000 injured....on balance elimating guns wouldn't lead to many deaths from animals or two legged predators.
> 
> 
> The reality in America is that gun ownership is a hobby, people go to gun conventions.
> 
> Nobody needs high powered guns.
> 
> 
> None of those are high powered weapons capable of killing people, I think you understand there's no equivalence.



I don't think you have a concept of what some of the rural ranch or mountain areas are like in the US and canada. You live in a country where the most dangerous animal is a cow and rural areas are similar to our suburbs.

But it doesn't matter what your wants are, it's an amendment here. If you want to overturn it, you issue another amendment.

If it's really about numbers of deaths of undeserving victims, maybe we should amend the speed limits, as the number of lives lost to traffic accidents each year is still about 4-6 times higher than the non-gang/non-drug gun homicides.

I'll bet if we implemented a 35 mile an hour speed limit, we could halve or third that, or maybe 1/10th.

(most large game hunting in the US legally requires centerfire rifles- some can be done in other seasons with archery, but the bulk of wild prey animal population control is done by hunters with center fire rifles).


----------



## D_W

looks like alcohol is deadlier, also - 10,600 deaths per year in the US from drunk driving. I've got an idea. Let's make alcohol illegal. Nobody needs alcohol. Most people just have it because they like it.


----------



## Blackswanwood

The “right“ to own an assault rifle bears no comparison with speed limits and alcohol.


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> The “right“ to own an assault rifle bears no comparison with speed limits and alcohol.



oh boy. "assault" rifle. The federal government here is allowed to put reasonable limits on arms and they have from time to time (obviously, we can't own destructive devices and anyone wanting automatic or modified things needs to have a class III license, which is something the average person wouldn't do as it subjects you to ATF investigations unannounced any time (day or night). 

This discussion goes from "assault" to "high power" to whatever boogeyman everyone wants to come up with. What's the difference between a browning BLR and an AR-10? The former (and the latter) is an allowable hunting rifle in a lot of states. In mine, the action has to be manually operated, so not here, though ownership is fine - they're just not considered sporting for hunting. 

I can't think of a single thing that's productive about alcohol, and the number of screwed up people walking around from it (and the number of deaths of innocents) is far greater in the wake of it than "assault rifles" in the US. But I'm certainly not going to advocate banning it. 

Riddle me this - what benefit does alcohol provide that can't be gotten elsewhere without the same consequences? How many lives would be lost if it wasn't legal to consume and was completely unavailable?


----------



## D_W

(interestingly, I know nobody who has been shot, let alone shot and killed, but I have two relatives - one near and one distant - dead due to alcohol).


----------



## gregmcateer

Clearly alcohol can be and is abused. Some of that abuse sadly ends in death. The last time you folk banned it didn't end so well, (unless you were from the tougher end of Italian stock ).

The comparison with cars is frankly ridiculous, (unless we discuss the carbon effects, but please, let's not go there just yet!).
Cars are not actually designed to be propelled at a thing, living or inanimate.
If the lives lost to traffic incidents is 4-6 times higher than shooting, the stat also needs the number of miles driven or journeys made to be even considered in the same discussion. 

And yes, reduce the speed limit and less people will die. Categorically correct. 

Always interesting to note the gun death comparison between the US and other normal western democratic countries. 

But let's not fall out over it, gents. We don't have the NRA and are generally pleased about that. You do and I guess that works for you. 

Let's stay friends, everyone, seriously.


----------



## billw

We're allowed hunting rifles here for sport and pest control. The difference is this...

" *Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right*. Firearms control in the UK is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 0.2%) of recorded crime "

Handguns? Banned. Semi-automatic weapons? Permissible in some circumstances. Sniper rifles? Yup. Shotguns? Yes, if they hold 3 cartridges maximum.

Do people feel the need to walk round Tesco with half an armoury when buying soup and toothpaste? No. You'd have SCO19 breathing down your neck bloody fast trying that.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

I am 67. I was told by an acquaintance probably twelve, maybe fifteen years older than me that when he was young it was easier to get a licence for a rifle then a shotgun as rifles were deemed not much use for armed robberies etc. I don't know. 
I grew up from the age of eight carrying a knife as routine - nearly everyone I knew did. I remember my mother asking me for my knife in the middle of a wedding reception (she had a loose thread on a button) - she presumed I had a knife. I always carried a knife (and still do - a rather nice illegal Sandvik Browning). She would have consider it odd if I was out without a knife. I never knew anyone ever to get stabbed.
When I was ten or twelve years old several of the kids in the village had their own shotguns and used them un accommpanied - no one ever got shot. Some of them drove tractors etc. - no one got run over either. Another time, another place.


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> We're allowed hunting rifles here for sport and pest control. The difference is this...
> 
> " *Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right*. Firearms control in the UK is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 0.2%) of recorded crime "
> 
> Handguns? Banned. Semi-automatic weapons? Permissible in some circumstances. Sniper rifles? Yup. Shotguns? Yes, if they hold 3 cartridges maximum.
> 
> Do people feel the need to walk round Tesco with half an armoury when buying soup and toothpaste? No. You'd have SCO19 breathing down your neck bloody fast trying that.



I've been alive 44 years. I have seen someone open carrying in a store once in 44 years. For the most part, people have guns here and the guns stay in their house, and in the last three decades, what used to be in unlocked cabinets and such is now in locked storage. When I had guns, they were all locked. I got them out to go to the range and brought them back and cleaned them, and then back they went. 

If you are to carry somewhere here open and you go in a store and they ask you to leave, it's criminal trespass if you don't. Many of the stores have signs that say no weapons are allowed (that's not limited to firearms, but anything). When I owned guns, i maintained a carry permit. I can count on zero thumbs the number of times I carried anything, but it was advised to us with hunter's safety that it'd be wise to get a carry permit as going to and from the range in my state is legal for anyone. Stopping anywhere (For anything, even gas) is not legal with a handgun unless you have a carry permit. obviously, I no longer have a carry permit, either (they cost the princely sum of $4.50 a year here, which was more or less to maintain a database of the permit holders and to do a background check at renewal). 

The fascination with this topic outside of the US is, quite frankly, dumb. It's based on skewed perception or just prissyness. The skewed perception part of it is if someone is concerned about the availability of firearms and they believe that their concern is solely safety based. There are ladies in my neighborhood (and probably guys, ladies tend to be more vocal) who believe that gun ownership is the number one threat to their safety, but they travel overseas, drive all over the place and drink. I don't really have an objection to people drinking, but the reality is if a cohort drinks, some will have an affinity for alcohol and eventually die. 

A far bigger thing on my radar is having my kids learn to make good decisions from the start. Alcohol, opioids, benzodiazepenes. All of us here know someone who has had a run in (neighbor's daughter died from an overdose - once again, something that I can identify a person with, but not scary on the news like the gun stories). Overdose deaths from drugs here last year in combination with non-accident related alcohol deaths (so not even including the 10k drunk driving deaths) total over 100k per year. Those two alone are at least 16 or 17 times greater than the gun death exposure. You can just go down this list forever, but nobody is scared of it until after it happens. Stupidity.


----------



## harryc

Wow DW does himself no favours at all does he - equating cars to Guns oh boy!!
And then comes out with something as pathetic as I don’t know anyone who has been shot or shot anyone, Im sure all those parents of children murdered at School will have the same thought process!!

The highest murder rate with guns in the western society and he wonders why there is a fascination why any country would not want to address this issue.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The elephant in the room is possibly that it wouldn't make the slightest differnce to the murder/death rates now if guns were banned - there are so many already in circulation. There aren't too many deaths from legally held guns here.


----------



## John Brown

He's right in a way, though. The US has a pretty bad road traffic death figure too. They should fix their driving tests, and maybe consider some sort of annual roadworthiness check. I've seen things driven on US roads that would have you pulled over in seconds in the UK.


----------



## Noel

D_W said:


> (interestingly, I know nobody who has been shot, let alone shot and killed, but I have two relatives - one near and one distant - dead due to alcohol).



I knew some who have been shot. Sometimes in the back of the head, sometimes in the knees. The former didn’t survive, dumped on waste ground or by the side of the road. 
Guns designed to kill are evil and totally unnecessary. 
I will never ever understand the mentality of those that are pro weapon, never.


----------



## John Brown

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org




I don't know, maybe this is fake news, but that histogram is pretty conclusive.


----------



## Mark Hancock

D_W said:


> You live in a country where the most dangerous animal is a cow and rural areas are similar to our suburbs.


Sorry but I couldn't help laughing at this sentence.  It brought back memories of continually having to explain where in the UK I came from; at that time it was Wales and few Americans had heard of it. 
By the way I'd rather a cow to a bull


----------



## John Brown

It's total pineapples, anyway. In the US, as in the UK probably, farm animals, wasps etc. are responsible for more deaths than cougars or bears. It's simply another justification for owning guns.


----------



## billw

Mark Hancock said:


> Sorry but I couldn't help laughing at this sentence.  It brought back memories of continually having to explain where in the UK I came from; at that time it was Wales and few Americans had heard of it.
> By the way I'd rather a cow to a bull



I had an American tell me he had Welsh ancestors, so I asked where in Wales they were from. He didn't know. Cutting a long story short he didn't know where Wales was either.


----------



## billw

I'm not really grasping this guns/alcohol equivalence. I can't say I'd be that afraid if someone pointed a full gin and tonic at me in Wetherspoons.


----------



## John Brown

Can a crazy person enter a school building and spray pupils with opioids from a device designed for such a purpose?
But you have another good point, D_W. The wanton prescription of drugs for profit needs to be addressed also.


----------



## billw

John Brown said:


> The wanton prescription of drugs for profit needs to be addressed also.



YOU'RE ONE OF THOSE COMMUNISTS!


----------



## Mark Hancock

billw said:


> I had an American tell me he had Welsh ancestors, so I asked where in Wales they were from. He didn't know. Cutting a long story short he didn't know where Wales was either.


I use to describe Wales as that bit stuck on the west side of England in an attempt to explain where it was.


----------



## D_W

Mark Hancock said:


> Sorry but I couldn't help laughing at this sentence.  It brought back memories of continually having to explain where in the UK I came from; at that time it was Wales and few Americans had heard of it.
> By the way I'd rather a cow to a bull



Actually, I thought it was quite funny as parts of the mountain areas in the states generally aren't traversed without a guide or firearm, definitely true in parts of northern canada and alaska. So I thought, i've never heard of people hunting bear or elk or anything in england and I typed into google "most dangerous animal in the UK" and that was google's response!! "technically, the most dangerous animal in the UK by death rate is cows". 

hah!

I live in the suburbs in PA - there have been a few times in the past year where there's been a neighborhood watch for black bears (all the way down to being in my neighborhood, though I didn't see the one they were talking about and it was a juvenile). Two in the same day in the area at one point, one much larger in one of the neighborhoods in the city of pittsburgh. If you live in the appalachians here in a more remote area, you'd probably be wise to carry a sidearm (bears are hunted here, of course). There are lots of old wives tales about bears and such things here "play dead and they won't attack". 

Those things work for some bears, but not black bears. 

Sometimes those bears get trapped, but fairly often they're just shot.


----------



## D_W

John Brown said:


> Can a crazy person enter a school building and spray pupils with opioids from a device designed for such a purpose?
> But you have another good point, D_W. The wanton prescription of drugs for profit needs to be addressed also.



It's a federal initiative here - 67k overdose deaths last year (that's on the way down). Figure to get a gauge of that on a UK basis, you'd need to cut it to a fifth. It sounds more fantastic probably because of the population here, but it's a lot people. I would guess far more from that group started with a prescription than those in non-gang, non-drug firearm homicides in the US. non-accident alcohol related deaths were 37k last year. 10,600 traffic deaths related to alcohol.


----------



## D_W

John Brown said:


> Can a crazy person enter a school building and spray pupils with opioids from a device designed for such a purpose?
> But you have another good point, D_W. The wanton prescription of drugs for profit needs to be addressed also.



OK, here's where perception vs. reality makes that nonsensical. What are the odds of:
* a child being shot in a school shooting
* a child ending up overdosing from heroin at a later age (let's say before 40)
* a child committing suicide due to bullying and associated depression

Which one are people the most afraid of?


----------



## D_W

billw said:


> I'm not really grasping this guns/alcohol equivalence. I can't say I'd be that afraid if someone pointed a full gin and tonic at me in Wetherspoons.



Which are you more likely to die from at birth - alcohol or firearm homicide?


----------



## D_W

John Brown said:


> cougars



oh come on...older women aren't that dangerous.


----------



## D_W

Noel said:


> I knew some who have been shot. Sometimes in the back of the head, sometimes in the knees. The former didn’t survive, dumped on waste ground or by the side of the road.
> Guns designed to kill are evil and totally unnecessary.
> I will never ever understand the mentality of those that are pro weapon, never.



You'd be a very rare person if you know more people shot than dead of some alcohol related cause. 

Aside from the customary entitlement to drink, put alcohol in your second to last sentence and reword slightly. explain to me the societal need for alcohol given the number of deaths related to it. why are those less of a big deal?


----------



## D_W

harryc said:


> Wow DW does himself no favours at all does he - equating cars to Guns oh boy!!
> And then comes out with something as pathetic as I don’t know anyone who has been shot or shot anyone, Im sure all those parents of children murdered at School will have the same thought process!!
> 
> The highest murder rate with guns in the western society and he wonders why there is a fascination why any country would not want to address this issue.



mexico? brazil?

tell me about odds and reality - see the list that I mentioned above. If safety or life is really the focal point of this, why do you breeze past the alcohol discussion? Is it because you enjoy it or know people who do, so it's customary and OK even though the death rate is far higher from it? What makes it more harmless?


----------



## D_W

Phil Pascoe said:


> I am 67. I was told by an acquaintance probably twelve, maybe fifteen years older than me that when he was young it was easier to get a licence for a rifle then a shotgun as rifles were deemed not much use for armed robberies etc. I don't know.
> I grew up from the age of eight carrying a knife as routine - nearly everyone I knew did. I remember my mother asking me for my knife in the middle of a wedding reception (she had a loose thread on a button) - she presumed I had a knife. I always carried a knife (and still do - a rather nice illegal Sandvik Browning). She would have consider it odd if I was out without a knife. I never knew anyone ever to get stabbed.
> When I was ten or twelve years old several of the kids in the village had their own shotguns and used them un accommpanied - no one ever got shot. Some of them drove tractors etc. - no one got run over either. Another time, another place.



I'd make a comment about the safety of tractors but both my dad and his brother fell off of the family tractor back in the 50s and got run over by a loaded wagon. Dad's brother's ear was nearly pulled off of his head and had to be stitched on, and dad crapped his pants (the wagon bounced over his midsection). Both were lucky for two things:
1) the equipment wasn't that big in the 50s
2) both were run over in soft ground

Both brothers hunted for food after school, not necessarily because they had to but they developed taste for it. Every day. Neither ever injured by guns but one later dying an alcohol related death (not my father). They were pretty hard on wild rabbits and pheasants, though.


----------



## D_W

Alcohol statistics | Alcohol Change UK


Read all the latest stats about alcohol in the UK.




alcoholchange.org.uk





It's not hard to find the impact of alcohol in the UK, either - I've never seen it mentioned as a concern here. You guys are more concerned about guns in the US than you are about alcohol right outside (or inside) your front door. 

I'm egging you guys on a little bit, but realistically, I'm wondering why you don't challenge yourselves a little more. What makes one more common cause far more excusable? Is it because it doesn't make a gory scene (well, that's not true - death by alcohol seizure is pretty ugly, as are crashes with young victims.). 

A friend of a cousin of mine (older than me) in the next school district over was erased by a drunk driver when she was 16. I can still remember the odd discussion about it, someone just disappears, but it was only remembered by us because we knew the person and she was the kind of twice a week sleepover best buddy of my cousin. But the outrage was fairly short lived. 

Can you imagine if she'd been shot? She wasn't, so nobody remembers. It's less likely that she would be. But people sure love their alcohol and can find a million reasons why abuse is someone else's problem, even when they're an abuser.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

It's It's all about narratives, hystrionics, and having to buy in to totalitarian authority. Follow the narrative that makes you feel the most comfortable.

From the wikipedia page quoted above: "In 2018, the most recent year for which data are available as of 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Center for Health Statistics reports 38,390 deaths by firearm, of which 24,432 were by suicide and 13,958 were homicides.

So two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. Would those deaths have happened without the gun? What proportion of people who have decided to end it all didn't, purely because they didn't have a firearm immediately to hand?

Then you have the lunacy that is American inner city gang culture. US murder rates are way higher than other developed nations. Lots of people shooting each other. Please note that they are _not_ shooting each other with legally owned, registered hand guns. If you outlawed gun ownership, and could somehow remove all the legal and illegally owned weapons currently in the US, would new weapons flood in from, say, Mexico? I rather think that they would.

The Brits have done sterling work keeping guns out of the hands of gangs, so they all stab each other instead. Should we outlaw all cutting implements that can be sharpened? A screwdriver is an evil weapon, as is is a chisel. Let's outlaw all of those, too. What you ought to do is outlaw gangs, because they are the idiots causing all the carnage. But that is a whole other can of worms.

Interestingly the USA crime rates have dropped significantly since the 1980s, probably because of the introduction of legal abortion. Well done Democrats. Unfortunately, the worst murder stats are all from high gun control, Democrat states (big cities, in other words). If you remove urban gang murders from the stats, the rest of the USA has similar murder rates to the rest of the western world (you can also perform the same trick by looking at murder rates by ethnicity, but there is a good chance that would be racist).

So, after all of that, guns and gun crime are extremely nuanced topics, complicated and difficult to pin down. Countries like Switzerland have high gun ownership rates, but don't have the same levels of murder. Why not? "Guns = bad" is a bit of a cartoon approach to take, but it makes for fun arguments on off topic forums.

Oh, and to confirm the lunacy, this might be of interest, although it is hardly politically correct - nothing very sentimental about the way the statistics are presented. Chicago stats: Chicago Crime, Murder & Mayhem | Criminal Infographics | HeyJackass!


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> I don't think you have a concept of what some of the rural ranch or mountain areas are like in the US and canada



I stand by what I said....how many people would die without guns?

You are talking about rural areas with few people.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> (interestingly, I know nobody who has been shot, let alone shot and killed, but I have two relatives - one near and one distant - dead due to alcohol).



I think you know that's a weak argument.


----------



## gregmcateer

I can see your point, DW about alcohol snd I thank you for making it. We probably do tend to ignore it, or at least minimise it unconsciously. I think the shock element at e.g. A school shooting is so great, that the reaction will always be greater. Probably increased when we here the gun lobby coming up with ridiculous arguments that arming teachers would stop a crazed and troubled individual with a rifle or more. Anyone who has ever shot anything will know that you have to keep practising - just learning is just not enough. 

More thought and discussion and action! required re alcohol and legal meds, clearly!


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> looks like alcohol is deadlier, also - 10,600 deaths per year in the US from drunk driving. I've got an idea. Let's make alcohol illegal. Nobody needs alcohol. Most people just have it because they like it.



Unfortunately you are engaging in whataboutery, which you know.

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument: deaths in USA from guns are added to deaths from alcohol. The numbers aren't either/or.


There is still only one argument for guns: "I like guns" that's it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> It's It's all about narratives, hystrionics, and having to buy in to totalitarian authority. Follow the narrative that makes you feel the most comfortable


Ha ha....you apply your usual post riddled with dishonest arguments, logical fallacies etc.

I can see a few in that post:

Strawman
Appeal to extremes
Non sequitur
Non equivalence
Etc

I always wonder why you do it. Either you don't realise you are doing it or it's deliberately done to inflame the argument.

So do know the dishonest arguments you make?

Here's a classic: conflating guns with stabbing.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> I'm wondering why you don't challenge yourselves a little more



We do.

Alcohol is one of a number of things that people get hooked on.

But it's a separate topic....whataboutery.

If you want to compare gun control, compare it to other countries....like Australia or UK


----------



## Blackswanwood

billw said:


> I'm not really grasping this guns/alcohol equivalence. I can't say I'd be that afraid if someone pointed a full gin and tonic at me in Wetherspoons.


You've obviously not been in a Wetherspoons when they run out of all day breakfasts


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> You'd be a very rare person if you know more people shot than dead of some alcohol related cause.
> 
> Aside from the customary entitlement to drink, put alcohol in your second to last sentence and reword slightly. explain to me the societal need for alcohol given the number of deaths related to it. why are those less of a big deal?


You seem to be basing your argument simply on pointing to more things that cause fatalities than guns ... should we ban food as overeating is a form of self abuse leading to obesity and mental health problems or feathers as we could tickle someone to death? 

We clearly have different outlooks and if you sleep better knowing you have the right alongside all your fellow Americans to own an item that's sole purpose is to kill that's up to you. I prefer the UK way where assault weapons are banned from private ownership and other firearm ownership is subject to tight control and supervision.


----------



## Lons

D_W said:


> I typed into google "most dangerous animal in the UK" and that was google's response!! "technically, the most dangerous animal in the UK by death rate is cows". hah!



I think you would likely agree that South Africa has many more dangerous predators than the US but when we were there our safari guide told us that cows were by far responsible for more deaths in RSA than any other animal. Taken in isolation that statement looks stupid but look deeper and it's because they are allowed to wander freely along the motorway verges with resulting crashes.

Last time we were in the US we came off the end of route 66 section on the way back from the Grand Canyon to Las Vegas and I spotted what we would call a large boot sale in a field, I spent an hour wandering around the stalls and at least every other stall was loaded up with guns and other weapons of all types both new and secondhand, I handled several and could have bought anything I wished without checks of any kind, I asked the questions and was offered guns along with the matching ammunition.
I was shocked and it was only a few years ago so unlikely the situation has changed, not my country, you can do what the hell you like but as far as I'm concerned the wide spread ownership of most of those weapons is unjustifiable and all the protestations are purely excuses.

If you look at my avatar that Grizzly photo was taken by me in Canada, there is little reason to shoot bears in most cases.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I think you know that's a weak argument.



It's an illustration of actual numbers showing up on an anecdotal level. 

we know the actual numbers, I posted them. It's interesting when anecdotal and actual universal levels agree (the greatest chance is this is the case). 

Other than that, guns are a legal/constitutional issue here. Everyone can whine and complain all they want, but there's a legal process to change the right. My point is that it seems to worry a lot of people (and the same is true here) due to skewed perception of likelihood from news. Just as I mentioned with my cousins BFF, when someone is erased by a drunk driver, the outrage is short, and nobody says "we should eliminate alcohol", they want to eliminate drunk driving. Drunk driving and guns are a lot alike in that there is no human survival need for alcohol, and in general across the board, the effect is detrimental, but far greater than just the number of deaths. 

I can't justify one person shooting another without imminent threat to their life in the first place, that's not the point. I can't justify it when it's stabbing, I can't justify someone refusing medical care or any of those things. The point is that there is a grandiose fixation on one thing, but another is more deadly, and another yet is more deadly on top of that but they're afterthoughts to people because even though they're far more likely (and most people will know it just by counting their acquaintances), they just don't get "advertised" by the news and turned into scary pictures.


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> .. that's sole purpose is to kill ..



I think we covered already in this thread that the bulk of the guns owned in the united states are more or less for leisure or sport. Assault rifle is just branded terminology. 

But, yes, I prefer to live somewhere you have the right, even though I'm not exercising it. If I were going to scare myself with stories, I'd look at the CDC death list or drive a motorcycle in the rain. Branding and imagery create the scare. By legal process, most of this country prefers to have the right, too - or there would be a large public demand to add another amendment to the constitution. It's that simple. The reason most compensated advocates for limiting rights don't advocate pushing for a new amendment is because they know there's no support for it. There is minority support to try to do something legally unethical (coerce local governments or other more easily manipulated groups to implement unconstitutional laws). 

If there was support in this country for a constitutional amendment, I'd be perfectly fine with it. That's the process. We're a society. I'd prefer if we followed processes and laws regardless of the outcome rather than changing processes on a whim.


----------



## Jonm

D_W said:


> I don't think you have a concept of what some of the rural ranch or mountain areas are like in the US and canada. You live in a country where the most dangerous animal is a cow and rural areas are similar to our suburbs.
> 
> But it doesn't matter what your wants are, it's an amendment here. If you want to overturn it, you issue another amendment.
> 
> If it's really about numbers of deaths of undeserving victims, maybe we should amend the speed limits, as the number of lives lost to traffic accidents each year is still about 4-6 times higher than the non-gang/non-drug gun homicides.
> 
> I'll bet if we implemented a 35 mile an hour speed limit, we could halve or third that, or maybe 1/10th.
> 
> (most large game hunting in the US legally requires centerfire rifles- some can be done in other seasons with archery, but the bulk of wild prey animal population control is done by hunters with center fire rifles).


Presumably you are talking about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

I know this is very contentious but there is more to it than the constitution saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I thought that America spent 719 billion *U.S.* dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> I stand by what I said....how many people would die without guns?
> 
> You are talking about rural areas with few people.



Rural areas in the united states probably make up about the same population as the UK. I have no idea what the answer to your question would be if the entire population here had no self defense. Certainly, the number of deaths by animals would go up, but it would be a small fraction of the number of homicides. 

There was a point here about 240 years ago that we used them to get away from a crooked government, though. Quite effective.


----------



## D_W

Jonm said:


> Presumably you are talking about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which states that “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
> 
> I know this is very contentious but there is more to it than the constitution saying “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I thought that America spent 719 billion *U.S.* dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.



This issue was settled several times, but most recently by the supreme court. The right is determined based on the law and the context provided with it to be an individual right, not a state militia right, but not an unlimited right (as in, it doesn't guarantee that you can just have any firearm you want, large scale weapons or war, nor can you legally own firearms if you're of a class of criminals disallowed). Pretty simple. The meaning of the amendment is apparently that the ownership as drafted was necessary for a free state. The military spending is necessary for the security of a state, but not necessarily a free one.


----------



## D_W

Mark Hancock said:


> I use to describe Wales as that bit stuck on the west side of England in an attempt to explain where it was.



I only know where wales is from looking at maps of sharpening stone origins 

I would imagine the percentage of folks in the US who would point to wales on a map is less than 25%. 

Then again, how may people could point to manitoba, saskatchewan and alberta and get them in the right order? I doubt more than half of the population in the US could do that, either.


----------



## D_W

Lons said:


> If you look at my avatar that Grizzly photo was taken by me in Canada.



Probably ill advised. Yes on the infrequency of need for any kind of defense, though firearms are the only realistically useful defense. Some of the people mauled to death by bears tried using bear sprays, etc. 

Bears are fairly common here - i'm guessing when they're troll through the neighborhood, they're looking for fawns and not much else, but who knows. They don't stop and converse. 

Interestingly, a friend of mine here (from england, but who lived in south africa due to some class/caste system stuff in the UK long ago - his dad was a laborer and he wanted to be an engineer and could find no job. He found one instantly in south africa)....at any rate, that friend totaled a mercedes on a cow late at night in south africa driving drunk with a car full of "big boys" as he called he and his buddies. He explained it as drunk driving at that time (probably 45 years ago now) being not that uncommon or having the same social stigma that it does now.

He didn't relay the part about the cows being loose on purpose, just that they were in the middle of the road and they blasted one. Now I know the rest of the story thanks to your post - that they probably weren't escapees.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> There is still only one argument for guns: "I like guns" that's it.


Unfortunately that turns out not to be the case (which is a marvelously polite way of saying "you're wrong"). A gun is a tool, and does a particular task - normally killing something. Sometimes there are things that need killing, and a gun is the most efficient way of doing it. At the risk of conflating guns and stabbing, there is no way I am going to slaughter my pigs with a knife. It can be done, but it's bloody dangerous, pardon the pun. I will choose a quick , clean death for the pig over chaos, suffering and injury, and and an unhappy time for the pig, too.

As you refused to accept earlier, this is a nuanced subject. You don't have to own own a gun if you don't want to.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jonm said:


> I thought that America spent 719 billion *U.S.* dollars per annum on the military to ensure its security.


The point the revolutionaries were making is that all governments will _always_ exceed their boundaries, so the people need to protect themselves from the despotism and tyranny of their own government and it's standing army (the constitution expressly forbids a standing army, I believe). To be fair to the authors, they had just fought and won a revolution, which had concentrated their thinking somewhat.


----------



## D_W

(I noticed the passing of the inauguration without incident wasn't as interesting as the soap opera stories that preceded it. Despite all of the admonitions from everyone on here about how terrible things must be in the states and the unlikely talk of a coup - now walked back by the media and federal prosecutors as having no evidence of such a thing - almost entirely a disorganized mob that was egged on just prior). 

This wasn't very difficult to predict, but it's not that entertaining to the rest of the world, I suppose. As far as the national guardsmen - two things:
1) they weren't needed ,but better to have them and not need them than the converse
2) they would've been kept off screen, anyway. The inauguration was more or less a made for TV production without a crowd, meaning you can control what's on the set pretty easily. 

There's not much tolerance here for military or paramilitary types running around with the public unless it's absolutely necessary.


----------



## TRITON

> I noticed the passing of the inauguration without incident wasn't as interesting as the soap opera stories that preceded it.


Probably more down to the arrests and talk of federal charges, and thoughts of serious sentencing,throw the book at them level and most thought...

"Sod this for a game of soldiers" and just stayed away.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> ...
> 
> As you refused to accept earlier, this is a nuanced subject. You don't have to own own a gun if you don't want to.


And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!





Slaughter poultry, livestock and rabbits for home consumption


How you can legally kill your own pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, poultry, rabbits and hares to eat at home.




www.gov.uk




n.b. The American Constitution can be altered - it's not holy writ. This can be done by agreeing to an amendment. Some may not have noticed that 2nd amendment is an amendment itself! How nuanced is that?  
It doesn't preclude a 3rd amendment. Hear's hoping Biden has it on his agenda!


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Probably more down to the arrests and talk of federal charges, and thoughts of serious sentencing,throw the book at them level and most thought...
> 
> "Sod this for a game of soldiers" and just stayed away.



I think they handled the small group of nutballs pretty well - most of them never made it inside of the building (I don't think you can get away with too much in the digital age, and this isn't a bad thing). 

Some of the other folks who went in because they didn't have a better hobby at the time are going to end up with charges and will be made an example of. 

TS as we say here.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
> Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughter poultry, livestock and rabbits for home consumption
> 
> 
> How you can legally kill your own pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, poultry, rabbits and hares to eat at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gov.uk



Going back to my comment about alcohol - I'd like to see the same standard applied (actually, I'd like to see it applied to neither). Guns are generally a leisure and hunting object here, but that's not what our second amendment provides. Alcohol is generally a leisure item here, too, until it becomes more than that due to addiction. I can't see your defense ("having a legitimate use for it") holding up very well. Can you?

It's intertwined in our society, too - a huge source of revenue. I'd bet it is there, also. The damage from it is far greater than guns, leaving dead, disabled and then a trail of screwed up family members in the wake of a single abuser.


----------



## TRITON

D_W said:


> I think they handled the small group of nutballs pretty well - most of them never made it inside of the building (I don't think you can get away with too much in the digital age, and this isn't a bad thing).
> 
> Some of the other folks who went in because they didn't have a better hobby at the time are going to end up with charges and will be made an example of.
> 
> TS as we say here.



The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.

The weirdos like the Horned guy play to the crowd, maybe more to do with personality there and lack of proper understanding than the nutters who shout violence and wave their guns about.
And the saddo type as in the judges son, who himself dressed in furs , in an attempt to steal some of the popularity of the horned guy. the judges son of all of them rings of a total sad case.
He'd go along with it all, but I think he's mostly harmless. He even came across as that, sitting on a bench all forlorn by himself.
Maybe thats more to do with his Dad than Trump.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.


Ah, yes - and you are just the man to make the judgement, too. What, exactly, is "legitimate"? 

It's yet another of those pointless internet arguments that go nowhere. No purpose to it. You do you, as they say. 

More on topic - have any of the terrorists been charged with treason or sedition yet? This was a pretty serious attempted coup - I am waiting to hear about all the death sentences that will be handed out.


----------



## Jacob

TRITON said:


> The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.
> .......


Yes these things get so exaggerated. Always have - only one person shot JFK but remember all the fuss they made?
In fact only 6 american presidents have ever been shot (4 dead, two injured). 6 is statistically very insignificant in a population of millions.
I expect they thought it was worth it for the 2nd amendment and the right of all Americans to shoot at paper targets and rabbits.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> The vast majority were standard 'Normal' Republican supporters. Only as you say a small band of nutters who did the invading, the rest went along for the ride but were no real harm to anyone.
> 
> The weirdos like the Horned guy play to the crowd, maybe more to do with personality there and lack of proper understanding than the nutters who shout violence and wave their guns about.
> And the saddo type as in the judges son, who himself dressed in furs , in an attempt to steal some of the popularity of the horned guy. the judges son of all of them rings of a total sad case.
> He'd go along with it all, but I think he's mostly harmless. He even came across as that, sitting on a bench all forlorn by himself.
> Maybe thats more to do with his Dad than Trump.



That guy was a fascination with the odd. But you're right, the news just loves something odd and brandable. First reports of him were "neonazi violent racist" all the way back to "navy veteran who didn't do more than talk". 

But what people will remember is the initial accusations of "racist tattoos on Qanon leader?!?"

There's quite a lot of that.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> Yes these things get so exaggerated. Always have - the fuss they made but only one person shot JFK.



Except the guy you're referring to was fond of your political beliefs and would be less enamored with the "election fraud" movement.


----------



## D_W

Jacob said:


> And you shouldn't be allowed to own one if you have no legitimate use for it.
> Possibly a bit too nuanced fo some!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaughter poultry, livestock and rabbits for home consumption
> 
> 
> How you can legally kill your own pigs, sheep, goats, cattle, poultry, rabbits and hares to eat at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gov.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> n.b. The American Constitution can be altered - it's not holy writ. This can be done by agreeing to an amendment. Some may not have noticed that 2nd amendment is an amendment itself! How nuanced is that?
> It doesn't preclude a 3rd amendment. Hear's hoping Biden has it on his agenda!



The first ten amendments aren't willy nilly amendments - they're the granting of rights to individuals, with the 10th declaring that rights not enumerated to the government are granted to states and individuals. It's not like an insurance rider that was added 60 years later by a bunch of fundamentalists.


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> I think we covered already in this thread that the bulk of the guns owned in the united states are more or less for leisure or sport. Assault rifle is just branded terminology.



If by “covered it” you mean you gave your opinion it probably is in your essays above somewhere.

An assault rifle is the term commonly used for rifles that can be switched to automatic fire ... i.e. squeeze the trigger and spray bullets. In my view that’s not a requirement in any leisure activity or sport. You may have a different view but I’m not going to be persuaded.


----------



## Droogs

Assault rifle is not a brand it is a military designation for a human killing machine that will provide manual, semi automatic and automatic firing of rounds at a rate between 200 and 600 per minute out to a range of 800m with a spread killing field no greater than 20m at 300m and is shorter than a carbine and longer than a machine pistol. Nowhere is there ever the mention of sport or hunting involved


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> If by “covered it” you mean you gave your opinion it probably is in your essays above somewhere.
> 
> An assault rifle is the term commonly used for rifles that can be switched to automatic fire ... i.e. squeeze the trigger and spray bullets. In my view that’s not a requirement in any leisure activity or sport. You may have a different view but I’m not going to be persuaded.



None of the rifles sold as semiautomatics in the US have a switch to just go to automatic fire.

In order for something like that to occur, you have to take the gun apart, modify the trigger sear and then put it back together. That's highly highly illegal and will result in felony jail time.

All of the semiautomatic rifles in the US that aren't owned by someone class III (gun dealers and the few enthusiasts who would subject their living premises to unannounced ATF audits) are one trigger pull, one bullet. Some have manual actions then to cycle and some don't. My point about the bump stock (which is probably an unknown thing there) was that it was a device made to cause the gun recoil to force your finger into the trigger repeatedly, functionally making the gun automatic. While I guess you could call me an advocate for reasonable firearms ownership even though I don't own any at this point, I had my spats with folks who said "the ATF says it's not Class III", in that "ok, it doesn't meet the ATF letter of the law definition so they're ignoring logic". Obama couldn't make a dent in it, or lost the will to try. Trump had it moved to class III. The contingent likes trump so much that the complaining was relatively mild.

This is one of the reasons that I don't like politics - the outcome is the same, why does it matter what letter is next to the name of the person doing it?

My point to you (being in the UK, this stuff may be somewhat foreign, the idea of trigger sears and parts completely different between the two guns, and *highly* regulated) is that a browning BLR or some other euro semi automatics are similar to the black plastic guns in function. They just look sporting. There are variants of both used to hunt here in the states. It's not allowed in my state - you have to cycle the action here by law, manually, but it's allowed in other states, and then yet some others, you can hunt with a shotgun slug but not a rifle (shotgun slugs look scary, but they come out of the air at an exceptionally short distance. At close range, they're extremely effective for hunting).

Don't worry, the media often has trouble understanding the difference between semi-auto and auto, too, and they quite often refer to semi-automatic US-manufactured semi-autos as "AK-47s" (a fully automatic soviet design).

Also, my point was that you are allowed to have a firearm for defense in the US if you'd like and you're legally eligible. You can lose that right by being irresponsible. The statement was made by several on here that it was a want (as in, collectibles or leisure) so I went with that in terms of someone saying that everyone was buying machines whose only purpose was to kill. But it's hard to make the case for that when most are just shot at paper.


----------



## D_W

Droogs said:


> Assault rifle is not a brand it is a military designation for a human killing machine that will provide manual, semi automatic and automatic firing of rounds at a rate between 200 and 600 per minute out to a range of 800m with a spread killing field no greater than 20m at 300m and is shorter than a carbine and longer than a machine pistol. Nowhere is there ever the mention of sport or hunting involved



By that definition, except for a tiny group of Class III license holders, there are none of those in the US. I don't personally know a class III holder who isn't a licensed dealer (class III also covers shipping - so you and your neighbor couldn't ship from one to the next unless the recipient has a class III license, and a license holder/dealer is where you would get a background check. The local ones here require a background check on anything shipped to them). 

An M-16 and AR-15 look a lot alike. The AR-15 function is similar to a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and not like the M-16.


----------



## mikej460

The fact that any American with a license can pop down to their local supermarket and buy a semi-automatic rifle complete with enough ammunition to wipe out a small town and parade about kitted out like Rambo on coke during otherwise peaceful demonstrations is indefensible by any measure. The 2nd Amendment is an archaic law that has no place in a modern society and I hope Biden is successful in his plans to curtail it.


----------



## Blackswanwood

D_W said:


> By that definition, except for a tiny group of Class III license holders, there are none of those in the US. I don't personally know a class III holder who isn't a licensed dealer (class III also covers shipping - so you and your neighbor couldn't ship from one to the next unless the recipient has a class III license, and a license holder/dealer is where you would get a background check. The local ones here require a background check on anything shipped to them).
> 
> An M-16 and AR-15 look a lot alike. The AR-15 function is similar to a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and not like the M-16.


And you can buy an AR-15 at the age of 18 but not alcohol until the age of 21!


----------



## selectortone

I have some very good friends in the USA and have been over there often on business and for pleasure (although not for a while now). Still keep in regular contact. I think the reality is that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle as far as guns are concerned and even though most of my friends would like to put that genie back in the bottle there's very, very little chance of that happening.

A lot of them, especially the guys who live in high crime areas, keep a gun in the house and regularly take time at a range to keep competent with it. They don't like it, but that's the situation they find themselves in.

We should thank our lucky stars that the chances of an armed confrontation are comparatively tiny in this country (unless you're in the drugs trade...)


----------



## D_W

Blackswanwood said:


> If by “covered it” you mean you gave your opinion it probably is in your essays above somewhere.
> 
> An assault rifle is the term commonly used for rifles that can be switched to automatic fire ... i.e. squeeze the trigger and spray bullets. In my view that’s not a requirement in any leisure activity or sport. You may have a different view but I’m not going to be persuaded.





Blackswanwood said:


> And you can buy an AR-15 at the age of 18 but not alcohol until the age of 21!



Well, I guess given that the alcohol is more likely to kill you, I guess that would justify that, but I personally don't agree with the drinking age laws. I think they are set by state, but failing to use 21 can cause loss of federal highway funds. In a wide open country not nearly as densely packed as the UK, highway funds are important (as in, there's a larger burden per capita for roads...not that all of the cities do a very good job with road upkeep - the city roads here are the worst, but that's just because they have people with their hands out all the time).

I don't believe you can buy a pistol here at age 18. I think you have to be 21.


----------



## D_W

The uniform age 21 drinking age predates me being 21 - I looked it up. It was done after lobbying by mother's against drunk driving under two arguments:
1) kids age 18 (especially early college age) don't have the judgement to deal with alcohol
2) drinking alcohol during that age span correlates with some level of cognitive deficit as well as greater likelihood of alcoholism later in life


----------



## TRITON

> None of the rifles sold as semiautomatics in the US have a switch to just go to automatic fire.



Hence i suppose the 'Bump Stock' device. Always some cowpat out there coming up with such to effectively turn it fully automatic. which im glad they banned, though the reasons for them doing that we saw in Las Vegas.



> I don't believe you can buy a pistol here at age 18. I think you have to be 21.


" Federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of *18*. Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition. Licensed gun dealers aren't allowed to sell handguns to anyone under the age of *21* "

Mind you... ever worked with a 21 yr old ? . Talk about no experience of anything, in fact they still eat sweeties like they're going out of fashion  

I've seen a number of old US movies, where the kid gets a 'long gun' usually on his 12th birthday. Appears to be very cultural.

Your tag is for Pennsylvania, which borders the Great Lakes. So I guess it's not guns you guys are into but bug spray


----------



## D_W

selectortone said:


> I have some very good friends in the USA and have been over there often on business and for pleasure (although not for a while now). Still keep in regular contact. I think the reality is that the genie is well and truly out of the bottle as far as guns are concerned and even though most of my friends would like to put that genie back in the bottle there's very, very little chance of that happening.
> 
> A lot of them, especially the guys who live in high crime areas, keep a gun in the house and regularly take time at a range to keep competent with it. They don't like it, but that's the situation they find themselves in.
> 
> We should thank our lucky stars that the chances of an armed confrontation are comparatively tiny in this country (unless you're in the drugs trade...)



If you carve it intentionally living in dangerous areas in the states, there's no valid reason to fear an armed confrontation, either. Not sure why your friends wouldn't move - there's generally lower-cost areas in most cities that aren't unsafe. They aren't particularly exciting, but if the choice is between exciting with shots fired and boring, I'm going for the latter.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Hence i suppose the 'Bump Stock' device. Always some cowpat out there coming up with such to effectively turn it fully automatic. which im glad they banned, though the reasons for them doing that we saw in Las Vegas.
> 
> 
> " Federal law prohibits the possession of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of *18*. Federal law provides no minimum age for the possession of long guns or long gun ammunition. Licensed gun dealers aren't allowed to sell handguns to anyone under the age of *21* "
> 
> Mind you... ever worked with a 21 yr old ? . Talk about no experience of anything, in fact they still eat sweeties like they're going out of fashion
> 
> I've seen a number of old US movies, where the kid gets a 'long gun' usually on his 12th birthday. Appears to be very cultural.
> 
> Your tag is for Pennsylvania, which borders the Great Lakes. So I guess it's not guns you guys are into but bug spray



Where I grew up, it was sort of (less now) common for people to start hunting with their parents around age 12 (not me). I can recall a few kids getting a deer rifle for their 12th birthday, but they weren't allowed to walk around with it like a doll.

The enormous combo fascination here on TV in the 1950s/1960s probably led to some strange idea about cultural traditions here (with TV shows showing pre-1900 western scenes where everyone either had a cane and a top hat, or a gun belt). For whatever reason, those TV shows played well with urbanized people - fantasy, I guess. Now the shows glorify urbanization and it usually causes "lady flight" (the ambitious ladies leave the small towns and head to the cities).

The combo with that fascination that's odd is the space/jet/rocket age. Little Timmy dreams of riding to space with his six shooter.

(we've got our share of mosquitoes, but fortunately not like the swamp areas in the north central US. If you live anywhere close to dairies or livestock farms here, you'll be fighting biting flies all the time - far more painful).


----------



## Jameshow

We spend a week in NY 18months ago 
- remember those days! 

We stayed on Staten Island and I went to get some milk bread etc on our first night, had a walk around with my 16 yo son lots of guys hanging around much like Bradford at night.... 

Next day spoke to owners who said don't go left out the house after dark as it's a bit rough down that way. 

Son looked it up and notorious gangs controlled the area. 

You live and learn..... 

Rural Pennsylvania was lovely definitely go back there.

Cheers James


----------



## Mark Hancock

D_W said:


> If you carve it intentionally living in dangerous areas in the states, there's no valid reason to fear an armed confrontation, either. Not sure why your friends wouldn't move - there's generally lower-cost areas in most cities that aren't unsafe. They aren't particularly exciting, but if the choice is between exciting with shots fired and boring, I'm going for the latter.


I spent 2 months in Philadelphia whilst on a artist's residency. I vividly recall hearing what I thought was a car back firing only to be told by a fellow resident that it was in fact a 38 gun shot; he was Canadian and had a gun for hunting...best venison I ever had at his home grilled on a bbq. At the time we were resident at the UArts student accommodation along Broad Street I think. That was in 2003. Also recall being told that the area we shopped in wasn't advisable because of the gun problem in that area.
About 2 years ago a good friend emigrated to the states. I met up with him in Austria at an event in late 2018 and he was telling me how he had to get a gun carry permit for his own piece of mind...not to be able to carry but to be covered if he was stopped in someone else's vehicle where a gun was found because many have guns without the required permits and as a passenger he would be in trouble particular as an immigrant.
I've read most of your comments on this thread and others but my own experiences of the States and those I know who live lead me to believe that they don't tally with reality.


----------



## D_W

If you lived in center city Philadelphia, you don't really have a concept of what most of the US is like.

Philadelphia didn't allow concealed carry back then, either. Not sure if they do now, but I had a permit when I hunted and it wasn't valid in Philadelphia. There weren't any issued there as far as I know, either.

Pick the worst five areas in the uk, concentrated spots, and the pretend you lived only in them and claimed you knew what it was like to live in the uk. Then pretend you got online and told the people who lived in the majority of the uk that they weren't familiar with what it was actually like.

I wouldn't go to school in center city Philadelphia, or south philly, or Camden new Jersey. I actually had that choice, and I recall someone saying that you shouldn't wander off campus at upenn or temple. That'd be an indication to go somewhere else. 

About 5% of the population probably lives in areas like that.


----------



## Mark Hancock

D_W said:


> If you lived in center city Philadelphia, you don't really have a concept of what most of the US is like.
> 
> Philadelphia didn't allow concealed carry back then, either. Not sure if they do now, but I had a permit when I hunted and it wasn't valid in Philadelphia. There weren't any issued there as far as I know, either.
> 
> Pick the worst five areas in the uk, concentrated spots, and the pretend you lived only in them and claimed you knew what it was like to live in the uk. Then pretend you got online and told the people who lived in the majority of the uk that they weren't familiar with what it was actually like.
> 
> I wouldn't go to school in center city Philadelphia, or south philly, or Camden new Jersey. I actually had that choice, and I recall someone saying that you shouldn't wander off campus at upenn or temple. That'd be an indication to go somewhere else.
> 
> About 5% of the population probably lives in areas like that.


I'm assuming that this is response to my post about my time in Philly etc. From what I recall Broad Street, Philadelphia isn't usually regarded as a bad area of the city; if I recall correctly it's the main street that leads up to the guy p,,,sing off the big building in the center of the city; Broad street being very similar to Oxford street, London...that's in the UK. The UArts accommodation was used for many years as it was central and had excellent facilities.
As to not knowing what the US is like I also spent time in New England (I can list the places if you wish). Arizona, Texas, etc. and the west coast. It was fascinating to observe the difference between people on the west coast and those on the east; west cost more open to the world, east coast more up tight and trigger happy.... first time I saw an AK-47 in the flesh was in the office of the guy that ran the city recycling center for timber. And on that point I was really impressed with the forward thinking of the city of Philadelphia with regard to how they dealt with timber recycling which should be adopted worldwide IMHO.
Just out of interest have you ever been outside of the USA?


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> ou are allowed to have a firearm for defense in the US



Guns aren't an effective defence weapon.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> There was a point here about 240 years ago that we used them to get away from a crooked government, though


Not relavent now.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> It's interesting when anecdotal and actual universal levels agree


Iits easy to find anecdotal evidence that agrees with almost any argument.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

Jameshow said:


> We stayed on Staten Island and I went to get some milk bread etc on our first night, had a walk around with my 16 yo son lots of guys hanging around much like Bradford at night....
> Next day spoke to owners who said don't go left out the house after dark as it's a bit rough down that way.



It was 1975. I was 22, and in London docklands for my girlfriend's sister's wedding (they were a London family). We stayed with a very elderly aunty in an awful tower block. 
After several (too many) beers in the local colour segregated pub we went back to the flat. I found (as I always did) the temperature and the lack of fresh air (not in short supply where I live) oppressive, so decided to go for a walk. The next morning the old lady said at breakfast that she'd heard the door open (not surprising, it had about five bolts on it) and asked had someone gone outside for some reason. Yes, I went for a walk. Oh, my gawd ............. *oh, my Gawd ....... * where did you go?
Oh, just down around the docks and up to Rotherhithe Tunnel. Didn't you see anyone? Yes, a gang of black kids, about fifteen of them. What did they do? I went to move off the pavement to walk around them, but they saw me coming and crossed the road. You were lucky - they though either you were a psychopath or had a shooter ........... probably both.


----------



## Phil Pascoe

RobinBHM said:


> Guns aren't an effective defence weapon.


I suppose a bow and arrow would be better.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Phil Pascoe said:


> I suppose a bow and arrow would be better.


A sharp letter to the comments section of the Guardian should do the trick. Works for me every time.


----------



## Jacob

D_W said:


> ....There was a point here about 240 years ago that we used them to get away from a crooked government, though. Quite effective.


In the intervening 230 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified they have _never_ been used to escape from crooked government. 
On the other hand _they have been used once as a threat to a legitimate government. _Only a few days ago, for those with short memories.
An overwhelming argument for a 3rd amendment!
In any case it was difficult to see how they could have been used effectively and instead they killed a cop with a fire extinguisher. Proud boys proudest moment!


----------



## doctor Bob

Jacob said:


> In the intervening 230 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified they have _never_ been used to escape from crooked government.
> On the other hand _they have been used once as a threat to a legitimate government. _Only a few days ago, for those with short memories.
> An overwhelming argument for a 3rd amendment!
> In any case it was difficult to see how they could have been used effectively and instead they killed a cop with a fire extinguisher. Proud boys proudest moment!



I'm maybe being thick but there is a 3rd ammendment already is there not. 
I'm not following your drift.


----------



## Jacob

doctor Bob said:


> I'm maybe being thick but there is a 3rd ammendment already is there not.
> I'm not following your drift.


Oh yes I wasn't counting. Roll on the removal of the 2nd amendment!


----------



## Phil Pascoe

The U.S. has just 4% of the world’s population but owns about 40% of civilian-owned guns globally, according to a 2018 report from the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. The SAS estimates that American civilians own 393 million guns, ranking the U.S. number one in firearms per capita. 

If the ownership of guns were outlawed tomorrow, how many of these would be handed in?


----------



## D_W

Mark Hancock said:


> I'm assuming that this is response to my post about my time in Philly etc. From what I recall Broad Street, Philadelphia isn't usually regarded as a bad area of the city; if I recall correctly it's the main street that leads up to the guy p,,,sing off the big building in the center of the city; Broad street being very similar to Oxford street, London...that's in the UK. The UArts accommodation was used for many years as it was central and had excellent facilities.
> As to not knowing what the US is like I also spent time in New England (I can list the places if you wish). Arizona, Texas, etc. and the west coast. It was fascinating to observe the difference between people on the west coast and those on the east; west cost more open to the world, east coast more up tight and trigger happy.... first time I saw an AK-47 in the flesh was in the office of the guy that ran the city recycling center for timber. And on that point I was really impressed with the forward thinking of the city of Philadelphia with regard to how they dealt with timber recycling which should be adopted worldwide IMHO.
> Just out of interest have you ever been outside of the USA?



Center city Philadelphia is not like the United States in general in terms of safety. If you were in center city Philly, Baltimore row houses or Camden, no, I wouldn't be surprised if you heard a gunshot or two. I wouldn't go to those places not for fear of getting shot, but for getting robbed or roughed up. They are a small part of the US where much of the murdering goes on. If you want to go to a small minority of the most dangerous places and disregard the rest, have at it. It's inaccurate.

I doubt you saw an ak 47. Ak 47s are fully automatic light machine guns. Something called an sks looks like an ak 47 but is functionally the same as a semiauto hunting rifle.


----------



## D_W

Phil Pascoe said:


> The U.S. has just 4% of the world’s population but owns about 40% of civilian-owned guns globally, according to a 2018 report from the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey. The SAS estimates that American civilians own 393 million guns, ranking the U.S. number one in firearms per capita.
> 
> If the ownership of guns were outlawed tomorrow, how many of these would be handed in?



350 million I'd bet. I'm also guessing the felons who have them probably wouldn't be in a hurry to hand over guns with serial numbers scratched off.

We have a lot of them, though. They're a leisure item here. At least I'd bet that's the case for 90 percent of them. Police tend to keep and own their issue weapons, too, which is probably 10 percent of those. At least that's the case for the police in my state. They're pretty enthusiastic in a lot of cases talking about them.

This isn't aimed at you, but it's funny how a few on here told me that I was painting a false picture about the capitol threat and the inauguration. The person who gave a first hand account of both the capitol riot and the shooting turned out to be far more accurate than the news, but living here, it wasn't hard to tell which was more credible. Now the news has walked back all of the fantasy.

The rest of the murse crowd has now gone on to fascination with guns, and despite having been in more places in this country than anyone on here and for longer, I'm learning that I really don't know what it's like to live here and the threat of getting shot is imminent. 

It's really bizarre.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> Iits easy to find anecdotal evidence that agrees with almost any argument.



You do understand this is irrelevant when you have the whole dataset, don't you? The whole dataset suggests that for the average person not in gangs or drug trafficking, alcohol is at least 6 times as deadly, and the non death destruction is far greater. 

Anecdotes are interesting once you see how they fit with an entire dataset. Chances are, if they're collected objectively they'll follow the dataset overall. I find this kind of stuff interesting because parts of it are literally my day job, and I never rely on anecdotal evidence alone.

If someone wants to ban guns because they're scared, there's a legal process for that. If they want to ban them for the safety and health of a community, I'd sure like to see a priority on the things that are a bigger threat and leave more for the rest of society to pick up. That's just being rational. But I think the level of regulation of all of it is already enough here. If you watch too much tv and you think the safe areas in the US aren't safe enough for you, then don't visit. It's pretty simple. Stay out of the unsafe areas.


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> In the intervening 230 years since the 2nd amendment was ratified they have _never_ been used to escape from crooked government.
> On the other hand _they have been used once as a threat to a legitimate government. _Only a few days ago, for those with short memories.
> An overwhelming argument for a 3rd amendment!
> In any case it was difficult to see how they could have been used effectively and instead they killed a cop with a fire extinguisher. Proud boys proudest moment!


It seems to me that, now Trump has gone, everyone is flailing around trying to work out what to do. Four years of "Orange Man Bad!" has kept you all fully engaged, but now what?

This thread has turned in to a generic "USA Bad" collection of disgruntled anti-right moans purely for the sake of it. Donald is out, but you can't quite switch it all off.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> It seems to me that, now Trump has gone, everyone is flailing around trying to work out what to do. Four years of "Orange Man Bad!" has kept you all fully engaged, but now what?........


Now Biden is signing a series of executive orders reversing the orange man's moronic policies. 
Civilisation is returning! 
Trump chickened out of his power grab and the Proud Boys are slagging him off.
Things are looking up - for the USA, and also probably for the world to some extent.


----------



## Blackswanwood

Trainee neophyte said:


> It seems to me that, now Trump has gone, everyone is flailing around trying to work out what to do. Four years of "Orange Man Bad!" has kept you all fully engaged, but now what?
> 
> This thread has turned in to a generic "USA Bad" collection of disgruntled anti-right moans purely for the sake of it. Donald is out, but you can't quite switch it all off.


----------



## selectortone

Trainee neophyte said:


> It seems to me that, now Trump has gone, everyone is flailing around trying to work out what to do. Four years of "Orange Man Bad!" has kept you all fully engaged, but now what?



If you find us all so moronic why do you bother trying to engage us in conversation?


----------



## TRITON

> This thread has turned in to a generic "USA Bad" collection of disgruntled anti-right moans purely for the sake of it. Donald is out, but you can't quite switch it all off.



I'm not reading it like that at all, i find it all very informative.

DT was a poor choice for the Republican party, i reckon they see that now and probably feel its tarnished their reputation, and are unlikely to make such a choice in the future. I think he just couldnt cope with the stress and went totally off the rails.


----------



## profchris

I think the discussion about guns is simplistic, because it suggests there are just two extremes. This Wikipedia table is interesting, giving estimates of guns per 100 of the population: Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia

Naturally the US heads the table at 120/100, which confirms that US residents really like guns. England and Wales is towards the bottom at 4.6/100.

But way higher than England is Canada at 34.7/100, Finland at 32.4/100 and Switzerland at 27.6/100, all notoriously more peaceful countries than England. Meanwhile lawless, drug-gang ridden Mexico comes in at only 12.9/100.

All of which just tells us that correlation does not equal causation, which we knew already.


----------



## billw

profchris said:


> .But way higher than England is Canada at 34.7/100, Finland at 32.4/100 and Switzerland at 27.6/100, all notoriously more peaceful countries than England. Meanwhile lawless, drug-gang ridden Mexico comes in at only 12.9/100.
> 
> All of which just tells us that correlation does not equal causation, which we knew already.



Isn't the Swiss something to do with the level of military reservists they have? They all keep their guns at home.


----------



## Droogs

yeah but hunting is a big thing there as well as target shooting, probably due to having to keep going for military refreshers until you around 50


----------



## Trainee neophyte

selectortone said:


> If you find us all so moronic why do you bother trying to engage us in conversation?


I find it strange and bizarre when my views - which I happily acknowledge are non conventional and possibly extreme - are more moderate and less extreme than the concensus presented here. I am supposed to be the one wearing the tinfoil hat, not everyone else. It's odd, and unsettling. It usually means I have misunderstood something. 

Sometimes it only means the concensus has disappeared up its own bottom. The alt-left is just as deranged as the alt-right, except pointing out the emperor might be naked gets you into serious hot water, deplatformeded, or even cancelled. Got to love the left - so accepting and welcoming of differences of opinion.



D_W said:


> This isn't aimed at you, but it's funny how a few on here told me that I was painting a false picture about the capitol threat and the inauguration. The person who gave a first hand account of both the capitol riot and the shooting turned out to be far more accurate than the news, but living here, it wasn't hard to tell which was more credible. Now the news has walked back all of the fantasy.
> 
> The rest of the murse crowd has now gone on to fascination with guns, and despite having been in more places in this country than anyone on here and for longer, I'm learning that I really don't know what it's like to live here and the threat of getting shot is imminent.
> 
> It's really bizarre.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> .....I am supposed to be the one wearing the tinfoil hat, not everyone else. It's odd, and unsettling. It usually means I have misunderstood something.


Maybe you haven't spotted that the general anti Trump feeling is shared by the majority of Americans, who are not generally regarded as alt-left, or even left at all. Also very likely shared by a majority of people all around the world! Haven't noticed any alt-left expressions in this thread either


> ....Got to love the left - so accepting and welcoming of differences of opinion.


",...welcoming of differences of opinion..." doesn't mean agreeing with people!


----------



## gregmcateer

RobinBHM said:


> I stand by what I said....how many people would die without guns?



But Robin, TN has already explained that killers will just use knives instead! Don't you realise, if a Sandy Hook type killer rushed in and sprayed the classrooms and corridors with knives, whilst shouting "bang" very loudly, just as many kids would have died. Never forget, people kill people, not the guns. SIMPLES.


----------



## D_W

profchris said:


> I think the discussion about guns is simplistic, because it suggests there are just two extremes. This Wikipedia table is interesting, giving estimates of guns per 100 of the population: Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
> 
> Naturally the US heads the table at 120/100, which confirms that US residents really like guns. England and Wales is towards the bottom at 4.6/100.
> 
> But way higher than England is Canada at 34.7/100, Finland at 32.4/100 and Switzerland at 27.6/100, all notoriously more peaceful countries than England. Meanwhile lawless, drug-gang ridden Mexico comes in at only 12.9/100.
> 
> All of which just tells us that correlation does not equal causation, which we knew already.



Finland and canada both have long hunting traditions (much of canada lived like the rural US for a while, though I'm sure they're urbanizing now, too). Not sure if there's a military reason behind finland's numbers, but back when I was hunting and reloading, I read a forum that had a database for load data and several of the members were Finnish. Posts about moose hunting and then hanging the meat (kind of gross looking when it's not your meat) were frequent.


----------



## Jacob

gregmcateer said:


> But Robin, TN has already explained that killers will just use knives instead! Don't you realise, if a Sandy Hook type killer rushed in and sprayed the classrooms and corridors with knives, whilst shouting "bang" very loudly, just as many kids would have died. Never forget, people kill people, not the guns. SIMPLES.


The cunning Proud Boys killed a cop with a fire extinguisher on the 6th! How many school kids could you massacre with a fire extinguisher? (asking for a friend)


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> alcohol is at least 6 times as deadly, and the non death destruction is far greater



You are engaging in whataboutery.

"There's no point trying to tackle diabetes, because cancer kills more people"

Can you see the flaw in your argument?


----------



## RobinBHM

gregmcateer said:


> But Robin, TN has already explained that killers will just use knives instead! Don't you realise, if a Sandy Hook type killer rushed in and sprayed the classrooms and corridors with knives, whilst shouting "bang" very loudly, just as many kids would have died. Never forget, people kill people, not the guns. SIMPLES.


 

Yes it's the good old knives trope.....it ps commonly used by the NRA as an argument.


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> You are engaging in whataboutery.
> 
> "There's no point trying to tackle diabetes, because cancer kills more people"
> 
> Can you see the flaw in your argument?


Gun deaths and road deaths per annum in USA are scale of magnitude similar. So obviously there is no point in doing anything about either of them?


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> and the threat of getting shot is imminent



I wonder why in America the police make you get of your car with your hands over your head........


----------



## Jacob

RobinBHM said:


> I wonder why in America the police make you get of your car with your hands over your head........


Or why they so often accidentally shoot a black person because they thought he might have a gun?


----------



## RobinBHM

profchris said:


> All of which just tells us that correlation does not equal causation, which we knew already.



The raw data on ownership per capita needs detail for nuance.

Mexico...full of poor people less likely to afford a gun.

Canada....There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories


----------



## RobinBHM

Jacob said:


> Or why they so often accidentally shoot a black person because they thought he might have a gun?



Yes indeed


----------



## Trainee neophyte

Jacob said:


> Maybe you haven't spotted that the general anti Trump feeling is shared by the majority of Americans, who are not generally regarded as alt-left, or even left at all. Also very likely shared by a majority of people all around the world! Haven't noticed any alt-left expressions in this thread either


v
By majority do you mean more than half? Or do you mean almost everyone? 77,083,679 voted for Biden, allegedly, but 72,159,215 still voted for Trump. 72 million people supported him sufficiently to vote for him - hardly a colossal victory for Biden, Justice and the American Way, is it? You seem to be inferring (and if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian I quite understand why) that Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world except a few lonely nutters and racist loonies. Not the case. In the same way that every single American is not a gun - toting, raw beef munching redneck. But you just don't want to let reality get in the way of a good, anti-US, anti-right diatribe.


----------



## RobinBHM

D_W said:


> , I'd sure like to see a priority on the things that are a bigger threat and leave more for the rest of society to pick up. That's just being rational



USA has mass shootings every year. 
10k deaths by guns, 25k injured.

Police face the risk of being shot routinely.

You might class that low priority, not me.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> v
> By majority do you mean more than half? Or do you mean almost everyone? 77,083,679 voted for Biden, allegedly, but 72,159,215 still voted for Trump. 72 million people supported him sufficiently to vote for him - hardly a colossal victory for Biden, Justice and the American Way, is it? You seem to be inferring (and if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian I quite understand why) that Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world except a few lonely nutters and racist loonies. Not the case. In the same way that every single American is not a gun - toting, raw beef munching redneck. But you just don't want to let reality get in the way of a good, anti-US, anti-right diatribe.



Oh well done, there's at 3 in that post  

Ad hominem
Appeal to extremes
Strawman

Are you actually able to debate without logical fallacies?
I guess honest debating would cramp your style


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> v
> By majority do you mean more than half? Or do you mean almost everyone? 77,083,679 voted for Biden, allegedly, but 72,159,215 still voted for Trump. 72 million people supported him sufficiently to vote for him - hardly a colossal victory for Biden, Justice and the American Way, is it?


A majority in terms of their electoral process, as you could find out for yourself, and easily understand, perhaps.


> You seem to be inferring (and if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian I quite understand why) that Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world except a few lonely nutters and racist loonies.


I didn't say that at all


> Not the case. In the same way that every single American is not a gun - toting, raw beef munching redneck.


 I didn't say that either


> But you just don't want to let reality get in the way of a good, anti-US, anti-right diatribe.


What, you think Trump won the election? What is anti USA about empathising with the winners of the USA elections?


----------



## Trainee neophyte

RobinBHM said:


> Oh well done, there's at 3 in that post
> 
> Ad hominem
> Appeal to extremes
> Strawman
> 
> Are you actually able to debate without logical fallacies?
> I guess honest debating would cramp your style



So majority = 50% plus one person? It does, but the response would be "so what?" I was trying to point out that quite a lot of Americans (72 million confirmed by votes) don't share young Jacob's view. That's a quantified, actual number, but there may be other Americans who didn't vote, who also don't despise Trump. I don't have any data for that, but it isn't completely out of the realms of possibility.

Feel free to write off 72 million plus people as being completely out of touch and therefore irrelevant - what could possibly go wrong? No need to worry about them - they don't count, apparently. I know that Trump lost, but he didn't lose by a landslide, and inferring that he did is, to my mind, incorrect (dishonest, in fact). Perhaps you could explain to me why it isn't.

The "strawman" was just for fun, and the ad hominem is only there if you are a snowflake. I may have done it again. Oops. Is that dishonest? I do apologise.


----------



## Jacob

Trainee neophyte said:


> So majority = 50% plus one person? It does, but the response would be "so what?" I was trying to point out that quite a lot of Americans (72 million confirmed by votes) don't share young Jacob's view. That's a quantified, actual number, but there may be other Americans who didn't vote, who also don't despise Trump. I don't have any data for that, but it isn't completely out of the realms of possibility.


That's democracy for you. Thats how it works. It's the similar here, even less fair - there's a large majority of actual UK voters who do not vote tory. Hence talk of FPTP, transferable votes, alliances etc


> Feel free to write off 72 million plus people as being completely out of touch and therefore irrelevant - what could possibly go wrong? No need to worry about them - they don't count, apparently. I know that Trump lost, but he didn't lose by a landslide, and inferring that he did is, to my mind, incorrect (dishonest, in fact).


Nobody inferred that.


----------



## TRITON

> Got to love the left - so accepting and welcoming of differences of opinion.


Jesus was left wing, Hitler was right wing.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> USA has mass shootings every year.
> 10k deaths by guns, 25k injured.
> 
> Police face the risk of being shot routinely.
> 
> You might class that low priority, not me.



It's odd that it's a priority to you enough to distract you from something going on in your own country. I can't make you feel warm and fuzzy if you take something very unlikely to affect you and fear it all the time and take a whole gaggle of things that are likely to kill you at some point and ignore them or consider the death to be a different kind of dead.


----------



## D_W

TRITON said:


> Jesus was left wing, Hitler was right wing.



Where this runs of the rails is when people try to describe Jesus as being a large government adherent vs. generosity at the individual level. Hitler also has nothing in common with "Right wing" in the united states, which is limited government with limited powers. 

It's convenient for people who like to cede decisions to centralized government to try to claim they're the Jesus type and everyone else is the Hitler type. 

I can guarantee you nearly none of the group (no more than the rest of the population) that went through the capitol is the "Fascist type". They're a limited government type. Some were probably part of what we'd call a "legislating morality" faction. I don't like that, but their gimmick is limited government intervention except to mandate some level of morality (not religion, but laws based on moral standards that they fail to recognize are just religiously based). Fascist and communist governments generally try to separate people from their morality because it gets in the way of redefining ethical standards.


----------



## D_W

RobinBHM said:


> The raw data on ownership per capita needs detail for nuance.
> 
> Mexico...full of poor people less likely to afford a gun.
> 
> Canada....There is no legal right to possess arms in Canada. It takes sixty days to buy a gun there, and there is mandatory licensing for gun owners. Gun owners pursuing a license must have third-party references, take a safety training course and pass a background check with a focus on mental, criminal and addiction histories



There's no lack of ability to afford a gun in mexico. GDP is $10K per capita there. Anyone living in a rural area would appreciate having a gun because one shot could translate to several hundred dollars worth of meat. (and before average income got so high here, meat was something you didn't eat in excess due to the cost). 

There are surplus military rifles that can be converted or used as-is to hunt (not machine guns, think bolt action WWI and II rifles, especially russian or japanese) for around $100 each at retail here. They're not bought that often because they're junky, but they were common in the states 40 years ago. You would hear someone (usually older) say they hunted with an enfield, a "swiss" or a mauser. I never had any idea what those were, but a lot of the older fellows had sporterized mausers or K-swiss or british jungle carbines because they were thrifty. Take all of the metal bits and pay someone to put them in wood that looks like a hunting rifle, or if you're really poor, don't - just use as-is. 

The reason there are so few in mexico is because of the legal penalties for having one.


----------



## Jake

RobinBHM said:


> Oh well done, there's at 3 in that post
> 
> Ad hominem
> Appeal to extremes
> Strawman
> 
> Are you actually able to debate without logical fallacies?
> I guess honest debating would cramp your style



It's almost like he's trained in it and unquestionably has absorbed a lot of arguments and argumentative techniques from those who have.


----------



## Jacob




----------



## selectortone

Trainee neophyte said:


> I find it strange and bizarre when my views - which I happily acknowledge are non conventional and possibly extreme - are more moderate and less extreme than the concensus presented here. I am supposed to be the one wearing the tinfoil hat, not everyone else. It's odd, and unsettling. It usually means I have misunderstood something.
> 
> Sometimes it only means the concensus has disappeared up its own bottom. The alt-left is just as deranged as the alt-right, except pointing out the emperor might be naked gets you into serious hot water, deplatformeded, or even cancelled. Got to love the left - so accepting and welcoming of differences of opinion.


Classic. I criticise, you characterise me as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth deranged liberal. Mate, I'm just a 70-year old crusty popping in from the workshop while I take a break from me woodturning. But of course you know all that, you're just having fun with a bit of trolling.


----------



## RobinBHM

selectortone said:


> Classic. I criticise, you characterise me as some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth deranged liberal. Mate, I'm just a 70-year old crusty popping in from the workshop while I take a break from me woodturning. But of course you know all that, you're just having fun with a bit of trolling.



Hey, 70 is now the new 50 something these days


----------



## bansobaby

RobinBHM said:


> Oh well done, there's at 3 in that post
> 
> Ad hominem
> Appeal to extremes
> Strawman
> 
> Are you actually able to debate without logical fallacies?
> I guess honest debating would cramp your style



Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.


----------



## doctor Bob

Don't forget whataboutery ............. another favourite.


----------



## Jake

bansobaby said:


> Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.



There is a classic straw man argument in the post Robin was responding to. It starts with the subtle (but entirely wrong and deceptive) "you seem to be inferring", which TN uses to pivot away from the points he is responding to and instead towards a made-up easy target for himself to argue against, which isn't anything anyone had actually said. Easy win.

Indeed Bob, whatabout whataboutery.


----------



## RobinBHM

bansobaby said:


> Could you explain your repeated use of the term “straw man”. It doesn’t really equate to my understanding of the term. But perhaps I’m just being a bit thick.



It is where a debater creates a new argument, which can be defeated....not the principle argument.


----------



## RobinBHM

doctor Bob said:


> Don't forget whataboutery ............. another favourite.



Guns in America kill 10,000 people a year......"yeah but what about people dying from alcohol"


Don't blame me for pointing out the endless logical fallacies used in these debates......point your finger at those doing it.


----------



## RobinBHM

Trainee neophyte said:


> hardly a colossal victory for Biden, Justice and the American Way, is it? You seem to be inferring (and if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian I quite understand why) that Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world except a few lonely nutters and racist loonies



Take the above:

1. ""Hardly a colossal victory for Biden" well Jacob never said it was so it's a strawman

2. "You seem to be inferring Trump is universally reviled and despised by virtually everyone in the world. well that wasn't the point Jacob was making so it's another strawman

3 "if you have watched the BBC and read the Guardian....." that's an ad hominem attack against Jacob.


As I've said, TNs posts are littered with interwoven logical fallacies. It is basically unpleasant trolling, which is why I'm calling it out.


----------



## Jacob

I don't mind TNs trolling - he needs the exercise as he's obviously not used to talking to people with opinions different from his own. This is often a right-wing thing, coming from a closed world.
"Attacking a straw man" is a bit like attacking Br'er Rabbit's tar baby.
"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". Wikipedia"


----------



## MikeK

All good things ultimately must end, and this thread is no different. The conversation has been enlightening, but lately has migrated from the original and directly related topics.


----------

