Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Yes I think you've got the idea.
What took you so long?
Appropriate actions are justified
Last edited:
Invasion of US Capitol building
- Thread starter El Barto
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
What took you so long?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Not yet, but on the spectrum.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
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.
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.
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 turd 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.
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.
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.
@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.
As with this from Legal Eagle. Short vid, well worth a watch.
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.
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
Established Member
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
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
Troll Hunter
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
What goes around comes around.
I made no claims about the numbers, is it a reasonable fact or not, you seem to think you know?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...prison-industrial-complex-slavery-racism.html
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.
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."
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."
Last edited:
billw
The Tattooed One
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
Established Member
You boys need to get a grip. Your version of reality is just as skewed and unsustainable as your imagined enemies'.
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.
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).
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.
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
Established Member
Surprisingly, it may be higher than one might expect:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-grisham-wrongful-convictions-20180311-story.html
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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
