AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook

from the ill communication dept

We’ve noted for a while there’s a weird myopia occurring in internet policy. As in, “big tech” (namely Facebook, Google, and Amazon) get a relentless amount of Congressional and policy wonk attention for their various, and sometimes painfully idiotic behaviors. At the same time, just an adorable smattering of serious policy attention is being given to a wide array of equally problematic but clearly monopolized industries (banking, airlines, insurance, energy), or internet-connected sectors that engage in many of the same (or sometimes worse) behaviors, be they adtech or U.S. telecom.

Case in point: while the entirety of U.S. policy experts, lawmakers, journalists, and academics (justifiably) fixated on the Facebook whistleblower train wreck, a story popped up about AT&T. Basically, it showcased how AT&T not only provided the lion’s share of funding for the propaganda-laden OAN cable TV “news” network, the entire thing was AT&T’s idea in the first place, and simply wouldn’t exist without AT&T’s consistent support:

“They told us they wanted a conservative network,” Herring said during a 2019 deposition seen by Reuters. “They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side. When they said that, I jumped to it and built one.”

It was previously known that AT&T was one of the few major cable TV distributors to carry OAN, therefore providing 90% of the channel’s revenue (even Comcast long refused to carry the network). That’s not surprising, given how well inflammatory bullshit sells. But it wasn’t previously known how closely linked the two companies were, with OAN claiming AT&T even utilized the network to help put a positive shine on the company’s disastrous, $200 billion, job-killing megamerger spree:

“[AT&T told OAN’s owner AT&T] needed help to allay FCC and other officials’ concern that the DirecTV deal – a consolidation of providers – might make it harder for independent networks to get on the air, Charles Herring said.

So, he said in the affidavit, Slator proposed a new deal: If the Herrings lobbied on AT&T’s behalf, AT&T would air OAN and WealthTV on both U-verse and DirecTV. The Herrings would be paid one-third less per subscriber, but because DirecTV had so many more subscribers, the deal could be worth $100 million over five years…The court filings also cite a promise by OAN to “cast a positive light” on AT&T during newscasts.

Given the sheer scope of the propaganda being funneled through online platforms, cable TV news channels like OAN are often dismissed as less relevant. But in a nation where elections are often decided by a few hundred votes, a dedicated propaganda network (one at the direct beck and call of Donald Trump) really can make all the difference, media experts say:

“If you have 12 Americans being fed a diet of untruth, that’s 12 too many – and here, it’s literally millions,” Watson said of the OAN audience. “When you have that sort of poisonous influence on mass media, it’s a problem; because elections in the United States tend to be so close, a few percentage points here or there can really make a difference.”

The story saw a tiny fraction of the mind-space usually reserved for modern day issues surrounding “big tech.” While Facebook certainly deserves intense scrutiny for very serious screw ups, there’s an obvious asymmetry in policy and media attention when it comes to “big telecom.” That apathy extends to the Biden government, which rushed to appoint a big tech critic at the FTC in Lina Khan, but still hasn’t been bothered to staff the nation’s two top telecom and media regulators, the NTIA and FCC. This despite the fact COVID has highlighted broadband’s importance, and issues like media consolidation are more important than ever in the face of a struggling news industry and soaring propaganda.

However bad Facebook is (and I 100% agree with complaints that its executives are monumentally terrible), think about this: in just the last few years AT&T has been: fined $18.6 million for helping rip off programs for the hearing impaired; fined $10.4 million for ripping off a program for low-income families; fined $105 million for helping “crammers” by intentionally making such bogus charges more difficult to see on customer bills; fined $60 million for lying to customers about the definition of “unlimited” data; caught in a scandal in which the company paid Trump’s fixer $600,000 for closer access to the President; fined $7.7 million for turning a blind eye to drug dealers running directory assistance scams; caught lying about its claims it stopped funding politicians supporting January 6 insurrectionists; and was accused of ripping off the nations school systems for years by one of its own, former lawyers. I’m sure I missed some.

Now AT&T has been found to be not only the primary backer, but the brain child of an outright propaganda network that’s so extreme, it’s to the far right of Fox News. A network that routinely promotes anti-democratic election conspiracy theories, as well as anti-science COVID hysteria.

The occasional, piddly fine is laughable to a company that enjoys not only a regional broadband monopoly in many parts of the country, but received a $42 billion tax break from the Trump administration for doing absolutely nothing (technically less than nothing, given it has laid off roughly 50,000 employees since the 2017 cut). Tethered to both our domestic surveillance and first responder systems, AT&T is largely immune to serious government accountability because it’s effectively now a patriotic part of government. It shouldn’t be.

Where’s the week long hearing about AT&T getting billions in subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for nothing? Where’s the several-year exclusive media focus on the shoddy state of U.S. telecom and media? Where’s the Congressional hearing about how cable and telecom giants are funding and promoting outright, blatant propaganda? Where’s the endless parade of think pieces and deep dives into these problems? Why has Facebook, and big tech, completely dominated the policy discourse? Why are we seemingly incapable of chewing gum and walking at the same time?

We haven’t seemed to figure out yet that it’s all one, over-arching problem tethered to consolidation, monopolization, antitrust apathy, regulatory dysfunction, and corruption. “Big telecom” is seeing a tiny fraction of the scrutiny of “big tech,” something the telecom sector is actively encouraging. Similarly, countless U.S. industries are filled with sectors dominated by heavily consolidated giants, created by the mindless rubber stamping of terrible mergers. Not a one is seeing equal levels of scrutiny. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be heavily scrutinizing Facebook and technology giants, whose failures are clearly established. I’m just saying that the bizarre asymmetrical policy myopia — where “big tech” is seemingly all that matters — is starting to drive me a little batshit.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: at&t, directv, facebook, oan

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “AT&T Set Up And Paid For OAN Propaganda Network; Yet Everyone Wants To Scream About Facebook”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
94 Comments
Samuel Abramsays:

Here's the difference though:

"Conservatives" (actually far-right fascists) like OAN. It’s the same reason they won’t go investigate January 6th. Whereas there’s bipartisan consensus (or at least a bipartisan tug-of-war) with Facebook, Dems are scared of going after their own shadow without GOP approval whereas Facebook is an easy target because even its own users hate it.

Anonymoussays:

Rhetorical, I know, but…

Where’s the week long hearing about AT&T getting billions in subsidies and tax breaks in exchange for nothing?

Why should their pet Representatives and Senators bite the hand that feeds them?

Where’s the several-year exclusive media focus on the shoddy state of U.S. telecom and media?

Of course they won’t draw attention to their own failings – and the others are probably afraid to point fingers lest the spotlights be turned right back at them.

Kentsays:

Follow the money.

<pessimistic rant>
I have completely lost all hope that any form of meaningful industry regulation is possible in the United States. Regulatory capture is the rule rather than the exception, and all of our politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike) are to a greater or lesser degree bought and paid for, or they wouldn’t be spending the lion’s share of their time fundraising rather than legislating. Even if there was the political will to punish criminal corporate behavior, any penalties or punishments are that are levied against these giants are always monetary judgments, and always just pennies on the dollar anyway, and it is far less expensive/painful for them to do whatever they want and pay a meaningless fine, than it would be for them to act ethically.
The fix is in. The game is rigged. The house (and the senate) always wins. </pessimistic rant>

ECAsays:

Fun isnt it?

When all those conspiracy theories we debate, seem to come live.
When you can see it, is it a theory?
And who do we call? Ghost busters arent in business.
Superman, and his ilk Just have not gotten here yet.
They keep changing the rules and laws, we cant even read to day, what will come to be tomorrow.
Even if we had 1/2 the nation sign a petition.
Even if every person in every state, Cut off the congress wages and benefits. Do understand, WE are paying for them, and with enough people in the state, we can declare them Ineligible.

But we dont have enough that understand Everything going on, and the Corps will be on the other side, unless we direct it at the Gov. representatives.

PaulTsays:

""They only had one, which was Fox News, and they had seven others on the other [leftwing] side"

Did they really, or is their concept of politics so skewed that centrist, or even moderate right wing, sources looked like they were on the left? If I’m stood in the Arctic Circle, most things look to be in the south, relatively speaking. If I have a problem with that, someone needs to show me a map to see how extreme my relative position is overall, not demand that more things be installed to the north of me.

Lostinlodossays:

Face book, twitter, google, now AT$T?

There are more important issues than private moderation/censorship/sponsorship/wtf!

Here’s the reuse of the liberal line; “want better” internet? Make your own.
For all the trillions of spendings, infrastructure, where’s the national internet roll out?

All these tech investigations and calls for breakup and who said what and “Russia Russia Russia” is flat out waste of time bullshite.

How about getting the rest of the Americans out of Afghanistan? Or stopping the massive illegal South American exodus across our southern border.
How about fixing our FUBAR healthcare system.

How about doing something beyond finding ways to line your pockets when you get voted out of office???!!!

AT$T funding a partisan station? So what. OAN is just as bonkers as MSNBC in the nonsense crap it dumps out. Just from the other end of the spectrum.

You want news watch CSPAN. Nothing else in the US is non-partisan.
And all this investigate tech crap does nothing for the betterment of the country.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Here's the difference though:

Yeah – they absolutely hate that the internet isn’t like TV and amateurs can publish and get views without a gatekeeper. That "Big Tech" cannot tweak to their desired self-contradictory yet mutually exclusive standards is the most egregious of sins.

You literally see these people speaking of lack of consent manufacturing from the news media as a problem they call "being devisive". A euphemism for "shut up and do what I say".

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Here's the difference though:

I think the capital security camera footage shows why half of congress is not concerned with the “whole” of Jan 6.
Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened. It was a generally peaceful protest.
After months of focus on the very thing the Dems waive off in regards to BLM protests? The tiny few that cause the violence? Yes, the group of people who broke the law on the 6th should be prosecuted. The few dozen or so.
But don’t expect the world to move when you spend years ignoring the “handful” of those who break the law in liberal protest.

It’s that simple.

n00bdragonsays:

Re:

Whether you consider it left or right isn’t important. The real thing you should be paying attention to is that one group of people is selling two opposing flavors of politics and profiting from the battle between them. Whether you consider the rest of their media properties leftwing or center doesn’t matter. THEY (AT&T) considers them leftwing and they are designed, produced, and marketed to appeal to a demographic of people who are enraged by everything OAN stands for, but it’s all a marketing gimmick. OAN whips up rightoids to be frothing mad at the libs. Those angry people are created, whole cloth, by OAN to be a villain for CNN viewers to revile and hate… and tune in to CNN to be affirmed in how much smarter they are. Meanwhile viewers tune into OAN to be affirmed in how much smarter they are than wokesters at CNN. The arms filling Punch and Judy are connected to the same man.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re:

"No, it’s just that you’re on the extreme left and so partisan, anything even slightly to your right you see as extremist right."

The rest of the world, the dictionary, and the US before 1980 all beg to differ with you quite strongly on those points.

But do go on proving you haven’t a clue what that one-liner you lifted from the alt-right even means.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Follow the money.

That’s not a pessimistic rant. That’s objective reality, stated in affect.

The US has this weird way of allowing private interests to purchase politicians wholesale through campaign funding – and that means those who obtain office will always be the extremely wealthy who can afford to fund themselves, and those willing to sell themselves in more fundamental ways than most professional prostitutes.

Until that’s fixed and political campaigns become disassociated from super-PACs and Big Business, every elected politician will come to congress as the property of the vested interests who bought him. His "base" will always be an afterthought he only needs to appease with lip service, conjuring tricks, and public proclamations.

PaulTsays:

Re: When you can't defend, go on the offensive

It’s better than that – when Shapiro realised he was dealing with someone way more intellectually armed than he could ever be, he started whining about Neil not only being a leftist but ranting about him doing things for ad revenue and ratings before he stormed off (the BBC, of course, not being funded by any type of advertising and not depending on ratings at all).

Andrew Neil, for further context, left the BBC to help set up GB News, a pathetic attempt to set up a far right OANN-style propaganda network (although he left recently when it became clear even to him that they were only interested in propaganda and not journalism). Shapiro literally could not have been interviewed by anyone more right wing on mainstream British TV, and they were still too far left for him. Thus, proving my point above.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re: When you can't defend, go on the offensive

Oh that is just priceless, he was dealing with the UK equivalent of an OAN founder and still accused the man of being a ‘leftist’, exposing that the label is meaningless either because of how warped his position is and how basically anything will be to the left of it or because the label has nothing do with politics and actually translates to as simply ‘person who doesn’t agree with me’.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: Follow the money.

"You can’t really fix it. Rich people can always use their wealth to avoid and manipulate the rules."

Sounds like yet another "Only In America" issue…because although some finagling is certainly possible anywhere Europe still has a better record – although the EU itself is starting has been slipping here there is no question that vested interests can’t fund a candidate into office without it becoming glaringly obvious who bought that candidate.

Generally speaking when you normally vote for a party rather than an individual candidate it becomes onerous in the extreme for some lobbying interest to spend as liberally when they really can’t preapprove and vet the presumptive office holder.

When what you have is a form of ranked-choice voting system with between half a dozen and a dozen parties represented it gets even harder.

But there’s something else which separates the american voter from a european one – in most of europe it would be unthinkable to place a politician on a pedestal the way americans keep doing. There’s nothing sacred about the prime minister or the party leaders. Parliament members aren’t held in great esteem. It’s understood their job is to represent the citizenry and when they fail to do so they get sacked.

I think it must be the first-past-the-post rule which allows people like Hawley, or in the UK, Boris Johnson, to gain office, because you don’t see this crap in any place with halfways sensible election rules.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: When you can't defend, go on the offensive

"Oh that is just priceless, he was dealing with the UK equivalent of an OAN founder and still accused the man of being a ‘leftist’…"

Is this the time for a reminder that not only does the alt-right consider normal right-wing extremists ‘leftists’, they also themselves keep pushing arguments right out of The Communist Manifesto?

Years ago political analysts pegged the US alt-right for what it really was. National Socialism. So whenever some alt-right moron shows up with their skew on what a ‘leftist’ is we can’t very well say we did nazi that coming.

Especially when you compare the speeches and talking points of the modern US alt-right with what Goebbels pushed back in 1932.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: When you can't defend, go on the offensive

It is amazing… Basically, Shapiro tried his typical Gish Gallop style, but came up against someone who knew the arguments and could immediately counter them, whereas the gallop style depends on the opponent not being able to counter the arguments at the time they’re being made.

If anyone here wants context, this is it. Bear in mind that in the UK, Neil would be an O’Reilly type, just less openly obnoxious and allergic to facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Samuel Abramsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Follow the money.

Generally speaking when you normally vote for a party rather than an individual candidate it becomes onerous in the extreme for some lobbying interest to spend as liberally when they really can’t preapprove and vet the presumptive office holder.

When what you have is a form of ranked-choice voting system with between half a dozen and a dozen parties represented it gets even harder.

There are some constituencies in the US with the fusion voting system, like in New York State and Oregon. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fusion#United_States

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened. It was a generally peaceful protest.

“One little tiny group” stormed the Capitol, disrupted the most important act in American democracy, and called for the hanging of the man tasked with carrying out that act (the Vice President of the United States). And let’s not forget about the anti-police violence and the destruction and theft of property within and outside the Capitol. But sure, it was a “peaceful protest” otherwise~.

After months of focus on the very thing the Dems waive off in regards to BLM protests?

Three things:

  1. The overwhelming majority of protests for the Black Lives Matter movement have been, and continue to be, peaceful events.

  2. In the instances of violence that have broken out at such protests, many of them were provoked by police, and some were carried out by assholes acting under the guise of the BLM movement to pin the blame for violence on the movement itself.

  3. The Black Lives Matter movement didn’t try to disrupt American democracy, and it sure as hell didn’t call for the lynching of Mike Pence.

don’t expect the world to move when you spend years ignoring the “handful” of those who break the law in liberal protest

Don’t expect the world to take you seriously when you downplay an attempt to undermine the presidential election as a “peaceful protest”.

Tell me, do you think the New Confederates will accept you when the next civil war breaks out? Because I’m pretty sure that despite your sticking up for them in a way that would make Donald Trump proud, you’d be near the top of their enemies list, what with your being queer and non-Christian.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

"Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened"

The majority of Germans didn’t participate in the Night Of Long Knives or the burning of the Reichstag. The fact those guys succeeded and the Trump fanboys didn’t does not mean it wasn’t a significant attempt.

"But don’t expect the world to move when you spend years ignoring the “handful” of those who break the law in liberal protest."

Protest is legal. Breaking into the seat of government with the expressed intention of reversing a democratic vote is not, even if you fail. If you have actual charges to bring against the people who actually participated in the BLM protests, have at it, but that doesn’t change your attempt at violating the concept of democracy because your orange god was a sore loser.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

"Outside of one little tiny group nothing happened. It was a generally peaceful protest."

A thousand people storming the capitol, forcing the doors and windows open, and beating an officer to death?

That’s not "tiny".

"The few dozen or so."

Several hundreds on camera stomping through the secured sections isn’t "tiny".

"After months of focus on the very thing the Dems waive off in regards to BLM protests? The tiny few that cause the violence?"

Which more often than not is on camera as being the police sparking the violence. I swear, every time you start coming off as making sense you run some argument which grew right out of the stormfront PR department.

There is probably a reason that the FBI currently has alt-right extremism pegged as the greatest domestic security threat in the US whereas "antifa" and BLM ranks dead last.

Rockysays:

Re:

Here’s the reuse of the liberal line; “want better” internet? Make your own.

A lot of companies was started for the simple reason that the founders weren’t happy with the products already available. That you think that’s a liberal idea means that you should perhaps reassess your perceived reality. The reality is that when it comes to commodity services, the bar is usually so low that it’s quite cheap start up your own service. Building new infrastructure on the other hand has always meant huge investments in money and resources.

That you conflate commodity services with infrastructure means you are more interested in furthering a false narrative that isn’t really anchored in factual reality.

PaulTsays:

Re:

"For all the trillions of spendings, infrastructure, where’s the national internet roll out?"

Europe, for one.

"How about fixing our FUBAR healthcare system."

That was suggested, then people you side with claimed it was impossible (despite you already paying for 3 such systems, them being successful in virtually every other developed country, etc.), and that it inevitably led to communism. Eventually, you had to settle for a half-assed compromise based on a Republican system, which half your government then tirelessly worked to undermine.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re:

"How about getting the rest of the Americans out of Afghanistan?"

Rescue workers, humanitarian aid workers, journalists, etc, have all been advised well in advance. These remaining americans are where they think they need to be. You want the air force to swoop in and kidnap them?

"Or stopping the massive illegal South American exodus across our southern border."

For what reason? Last I checked most of the US was screaming for workers willing to do the jobs immigrants are the only ones willing to take. Also, last I checked the writing at the base of the statue of liberty and read your constitution accepting the needy seems to be one of the core principles of the US as it was originally envisioned.

"How about fixing our FUBAR healthcare system."

Can’t do that. It’d be evil european-style socialism if you people had access to universal health care.
There was a time, before the first coming of Reagan, when the US believed taxes were meant for public benefit. These days the road you guys chose was Every Man For Himself and Fuck You, Got Mine.

Your healthcare system works as designed. The fact that it costs more in exchange for less than in any other wealthy nation is considered a feature, not a flaw. As is the fact that it isn’t practically accessible for most of the citizenry.

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

Well, the security tapes are quite clear on what happened. May want to watch them yourself.

Three things: the overwhelming majority of the Jan 6 protest was peaceful.

The people who went beyond the lobby, that they were allowed into, are the sole group to be looking at.

People say things they don’t intend to act on in public in the heat of passion. Madonna said we should blow up the White House. Nobody calling for her head!

Don’t expect the world to take you seriously when you downplay an attempt to undermine the presidential election as a “peaceful protest”.

Less than 2 dozen people broke the law that day. Every one of them should be prosecuted for their acts.
But the fiction of some great insurrection is now completely dead. Video proves it.

Tell me, do you think the New Confederates will accept you [if] the next civil war breaks out?

No! Do you think a few thousand racist god’s army fucks stand any chance against 300+ million.
Are you so misinformed as to believe there’s any chance of some sort of civil war over this?
????

Seriously? Both parties need to stop pretending there’s no criminal element. Deal with criminals quickly and publicly.
Stop hiding them. ALL of them.
Left/right/whatever!

The reality is the same be it Minnesota or DC.
A small group of people committed crimes. Deal with them in court.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

The people who went beyond the lobby, that they were allowed into

People were not “allowed” into the lobby of the Capitol that day, judging by the fact that the insurrectionists had to break windows so they could even get into the Capitol.

People say things they don’t intend to act on in public in the heat of passion.

They don’t usually repeatedly chant for the hanging of the man responsible for certifying the presidential election results. And by the by, who do you think told them that Mike Pence was that guy, and who do you think told them he was refusing to do his “job” (i.e., refusing to certify the election results)? Because it sure as shit wasn’t Joe Biden, AOC, or some other liberal boogeyman.

Less than 2 dozen people broke the law that day.

Funny, then, how hundreds of people were arrested in the following days, weeks, and months on charges ranging from trespassing to acts of violence against police. But I guess you’re going to say they were all arrested only for being white and standing around⁠—much like how you initially said that was the reason why Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed.

But the fiction of some great insurrection is now completely dead.

Only to right-wing shitheads like you.

Do you think a few thousand racist god’s army fucks stand any chance against 300+ million.

Nobody thought the American Revolution would work out for the Americans. Anything is possible (if you put your mind to it).

Are you so misinformed as to believe there’s any chance of some sort of civil war over this?

You’re so ignorant that you think there isn’t a chance of a legitimate nation-dividing schism after the 2024 election, regardless of who wins but especially if Trump runs again.

Both parties need to stop pretending there’s no criminal element. Deal with criminals quickly and publicly.

Nobody is pretending there is no violence on both sides. But the context and scale of that violence is far different.

If you’re going to call riots arising from Black Lives Matter protests “left-wing violence”, note that such violence is largely directed towards property instead of people. Right-wing violence, on the other hand, tends to target people far more regularly than it targets property. After all, you didn’t hear the people in the Capitol chanting “hang the podium from the Senate floor”.

A small group of people committed crimes. Deal with them in court.

I suppose a few hundred people is a “small group” from a certain point of view… ????

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

I spoke with Jake Angeli, the QAnon guy who got inside the Senate chamber. He said police eventually gave up trying to stop him and other Trump supporters, and let them in~ A Morrow
Follows the video evidence.

Add to that the capital security footage that shows the stood around, did nothing, and then left with no force necessary when asked to?

What you referred to happened in other spots. And those people should be prosecuted.
The majority of the protestors never even entered the lobby!

They don’t usually repeatedly chant for the hanging of the man responsible for certifying the presidential election results.

The internet is your friend. There’s thousands of hours of people calling for the death of the (then) sitting president.
“Hang Mike pence” is protected speech.
Hanging Mike Pence is against the law.

Funny, then, how hundreds of people were arrested in the following days, weeks, and months on charges ranging from trespassing to acts of violence against police.

Most of those “charges” were dropped quickly btw. The trespassing charges made up the bulk of it and police dropped charges. There’s few people still clinging to the idea they weren’t allowed entry.

First there’s separate things that happened. Just like…that’s right, the riots that followed anti law protests.

We have the assaults. And it was the protestors en mad that stopped them. Holding the suspects for immediate arrest.
And there’s incidental involved by taking shots were arrested in the follow days and weeks.

We have people who moved away from the entrance and gained illegal access via windows. To random parts of the building.

We have the small crowd that commenced a raid on the capital hallway.

Every one of those illegal acts must be punished.

only

https://mobile.twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1440776133675388931?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1440776133675388931%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizpacreview.com%2F2021%2F09%2F23%2Fjan-6-capitol-surveillance-footage-ordered-released-by-judge-wheres-the-insurrection-1138525%2F

You’re so ignorant that you think there isn’t a chance of a legitimate nation-dividing schism after the 2024 election

No. But it’s not some far-left conspiracy about racists that is the issue.
And that’s what your comment implies.

After all, you didn’t hear the people in the Capitol chanting “hang the podium from the Senate floor”.

You conveniently ignore the death to/for trump signs? “Kill the king”? “Kill the tyrant “?
Etc.
Words and ideas themselves are protected. Be they against Trump, the police, or Pence.
We had members of congress which death to Trump when contracting covid.
But let’s focus on “hang Mike pence” and not anything said about the President himself. Right?

Rockysays:

Re: Re:

I spoke with Jake Angeli, the QAnon guy who got inside the Senate chamber. He said police eventually gave up trying to stop him and other Trump supporters, and let them in~ A Morrow Follows the video evidence.

Here’s the thing, "eventually gave up" in this context means that the officers couldn’t stop the the overwhelming amount of criminals forcing their way into the Capitolium. I don’t know what video footage you conveniently didn’t watch, because up to the point where the officers couldn’t the criminals any longer we see the criminals bashing in doors, windows and assaulting the officers.

If 20 people force themselves into your home by breaking down your door and windows, then take shit on your table, stealing your stuff as souvenirs and tracking mud all over – that just a peaceful occurrence, right? RIGHT?

And if you happen to shoot one of them that is breaking down your door, you just murdered a peaceful person, right? RIGHT?

And when you realize you can’t really stop them without getting hurt and you give up, that must be same as giving them permission, right? RIGHT?

And the horde of people than then enters your home, well, they where just peaceful visitors not doing anything wrong, right? RIGHT?

But let’s focus on “hang Mike pence” and not anything said about the President himself. Right?

Do you have examples of people chanting "Kill the king" and waving signs saying Trump should die while forcing themselves into a federal building and assaulting the officers trying to stop them? If you can’t that means your argument it built on a false premise.

The mental contortions you go through to excuse what happened tells us that you aren’t interested in the truth one bit since it threatens your beliefs, which is a very good indication of a fanatic.

Stevasays:

Re: Re:

I saw the entire attack on tv actally had 3 TVs on superset networks oan and newsmax were aging the criminals were balm and artifacts even so far as saying they had facial recognition software telling them this.
There were hours of violence involving thousands of protestors I watched the assaults the officers by so many absolute maniacs beating sprung chemical spay hitting with objects there is no ther true version of event and to think trumped watched this and did nothing most of the rioters walked away at 630 pm as a backup finally arrived. So they could of been armed. The politicians and people telling other versions of this are fucking liars. And if you believe them you are a complete fucking idiot.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re:

The police stepped aside. Allowed the protestors in.
Then asked the protestors to leave. And leave they did.

while forcing themselves into a federal building and assaulting the officers trying to stop them?

Unlike the Jan 6th,
The anti-police activists opted to just burn the federal building, including the cops inside.
https://metrovoicenews.com/rioters-attempt-to-burn-down-portland-federal-court-house/

My defence of the peaceful protestors is no more than the BLM supporters have been doing.

The biggest difference is day one if called for those who broke the law to be held accountable.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

My defence of the peaceful protestors is no more than the BLM supporters have been doing.

You’re defending a violent insurrection against the federal government in the name of the then-sitting President of the United States. Anyone defending BLM supporters are, at best, defending the destruction of property.

You are a conservative patsy. I would hate you but for the fact that you knowingly and eagerly play the role with the sincerity of a religious zealot. That just makes me pity you.

I mean, you have to know they’re not going to accept you. Other Trump supporters, that is. Sure, they’ll love to have you on their side as a useful idiot, but they’ll wring your neck⁠—metaphorically and literally⁠—as soon as you stop being useful. After all, you’re a queer atheist; no amount of wanting Republicans to rule the country with an iron fist is going to save you from them after you help Trump (or another fascist) gain control of the country again.

Rockysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The police stepped aside. Allowed the protestors in.

This right here tells me you are disgustingly dishonest. You reduced the violent assault on the officers protecting Capitolium to "they stepped aside" when they couldn’t stop the criminals from overpowering them.

These videos clearly show that you are so full of shit it’s pouring out of your mouth and ears:
https://youtu.be/YWOPlNf8-JY?t=28
https://youtu.be/3UwTzm5CCNw

You are a pitiful example of human being and I hope that you get the chance to explain to the officers protecting the Capitolium that what they experienced wasn’t at all what happened because, of course, you know better since . If you are lucky, they may restrain their response.

The anti-police activists opted to just burn the federal building, including the cops inside.

Which has what relevance to people trying destroy the democratic process?

My defence of the peaceful protestors is no more than the BLM supporters have been doing.

From this I can infer that you are still being dishonest or just plain stupid. Using other peoples criminal actions as an excuse to justify other criminal actions isn’t how things work. A crime is a crime.

And you are conflating what people are actually supporting because that’s what you do the whole time, ie people who profess to the same political belief as you do are peaceful even though they have committed criminal acts of violence.

The difference between you and people who actually have the faculty for critical thinking is that the latter will criticize likeminded people when they do stupid shit, but you have chosen not to do that and have instead doubled down on making excuses for them and offering up irrational justifications.

Btw, your QAnon buddy "Jake Angeli" whos real name is Jacob Anthony Chansley pleaded guilty to the felony charges for his role in the failed insurrection attempt. Let’s look at what he did:
*Chansley continued moving, reaching the Gallery of the Senate and then the Senate floor. He then scaled the Senate dais, taking the seat that Vice President Mike Pence had occupied an hour earlier.

He proceeded to take pictures of himself on the dais and refused to vacate the seat when asked to do so by law enforcement. Instead, Chansley stated that "Mike Pence is a fucking traitor" and wrote a note on available paper on the dais, stating "It’s Only A Matter of Time. Justice Is Coming!" He further called other rioters up to the dais and led them in an incantation over his bullhorn. He was cleared from the Chamber at approximately 3:09 p.m.*

Your statement about the "peaceful protestors" left when asked doesn’t seem to conform to factual reality, why is that? Did you just make it up? Perhaps you have convinced yourself that is what happened which means you are deluded. So, what is it? Liar or deluded?

Stephen T. Stonesays:

Just so we’re clear: If the insurrectionists had killed Mike Pence, you absolutely wouldn’t have considered the Capitol riot to be a “violent” event? Because I think you’d have a double standard here. You’d likely take the report of a death at a BLM rally as an opportunity to call that event “a violent left-wing riot”, but according to your own words here, you’d also be willing to consider a “rally” at which you saw the public execution of the Vice President to be a “peaceful” event.

(And before you say “oh it wouldn’t have been public”, please remember that a hangman’s gallows was photographed outside of the Capitol building that day.)

You’re so unwilling to even consider the fact that the riot was even a fucking riot that you’re actually saying you would refer to the violent murder of the Vice President as simply “part of an otherwise peaceful protest”. Stop and think about what you’re actually saying there for a moment. Are you really willing to go on the record⁠—to testify in a legal proceeding or sign an affidavit saying as much⁠—that you would absolutely and without doubt consider a riot during which the Vice President was killed to be a “peaceful event”?

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

You’re defending a violent insurrection against the federal government

You keep telling yourself that despite the growing pile of evidence that all but a few dozen were nothing more than peaceful.

no amount of wanting Republicans to rule the country with an iron fist is going to save you from them after you help Trump

Well, we’ll start
With Trump being a life long Democrat. That happened to be centrist. Secure borders, reduced foreign involvement, national healthcare option, America First?
Well, Obama ran with that. And I voted for it then too.

That pay-me-later politicians gets in the way over and over just means we need to keep trying.

Again you find an undying need to toss all Trump supporters into Q right.
Trump wasn’t elected by republicans. He was pushed over the line by those democrats who would never vote for General Genocide criminal conspiracy Clinton.
Or any of that group of cross-party gangsters.

People vote on the aspects they like most. People vote against the aspects they like least.
Often time you find someone with a bunch of bad ideas who happens to seek out something you strongly agree with.

That you think the q has any kind of real sway in politics shows your own bubble of understanding.
The party proper is far more tolerant than you believe.
So no, I have no fear of the Republicans party whole.
I am worried about the Dem slide towards the far left though.

You’re worried about granting more rights. I’m worried about the rights they’ll take away. Like arms. Like speech.

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

The few dozen insurrectionists don’t condemn the protest.

think you’d have a double standard here. You’d likely take the report of a death at a BLM rally as an opportunity to call that event “a violent left-wing riot”,

No. And there’s been deaths at most of the BLM protests.
It’s not a riot until the start rioting. I again separate the criminals from the protestors.
The riots often happen after dark when most of the peaceful protestors have left.

Stop and think about what you’re actually saying there for a moment.

If it was a separate group of people? Yes. That you really think that the majority there would have allowed that to happen in the first place makes me feel very said for your faith in democratic protest.
You’re simply unable to recognise that small subsets exist.

It’s obvious in your absolute denial of violence during/after BLM protests.
And it’s obvious here! Of the thousands in attendance. Of the sub-hundred that actually entered the capital through the main public entry…
How many people were in that corridor at the hallway? How many entered the floors?
You can’t separate the violent radicals from the group while! Either they all are or there are none!

Or the fall back when your smashed in the head with evidence: ‘false flag’ claims.
The reality is simply; bad people show up to large gatherings and do bad things. It happens.

You don’t condemn the whole for the acts of the few.
Regardless of what they are gathering for.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

You keep telling yourself that despite the growing pile of evidence that all but a few dozen were nothing more than peaceful.

Are you going to tell me that they were all leftist plants or undercover police, too?

With Trump being a life long Democrat. That happened to be centrist.

Then why didn’t he run as a Democrat and embrace Democratic/left-wing principles? He was always a conservative; that you never seemed to realize it is your problem.

Secure borders, reduced foreign involvement, national healthcare option, America First?

He didn’t want secure borders. He wanted closed borders⁠—to completely shut down immigration.

He didn’t want “reduced” foreign involvement. He wanted to involve the U.S. military in actions outside the U.S. that would benefit him and his friends in the military industrial complex. And by the by: It was the Trump administration that released thousands of Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan as part of a plan to broker some sort of peace deal with the Taliban and eventually withdraw U.S. troops from the country, so…hey, how’d that plan work out in the long run?

He didn’t want a public healthcare option. He never pushed for a public healthcare option, and even if he did, he never had a healthcare plan to show off that would’ve proven so. (Yes, I know you’ll want to say “BuT hE wAnTeD rEpEaL aNd RePlAcE!!!1!”, but the fact of the matter is that he planned to repeal the ACA without an actual replacement plan ready to go, so fuck you if you pull out that tired-ass non-starter of an argument again, you right-wing propagandist.)

As for “America First”: How come he didn’t seem to ever care about the Americans who voted against him even though he was the president of all Americans? And before you say “but he did care”, I’d like to remind you that he threatened to withhold federal funds from “blue states” on multiple occasions for a variety of reasons. That doesn’t sound very “America First” to me.

you find an undying need to toss all Trump supporters into Q right

As long as you keep kissing his ass and calling it the greatest thing since sliced cheese⁠—i.e., as long as you keep praising him without any criticism or complaint⁠—I’m going to call you a delusional ass-kisser. Don’t like it? Accept that Trump isn’t God, yours or mine, and start looking at criticisms of Trump as something beyond “orange man bad because Rachel Maddow said so” or whatever you tell yourself.

I voted for Joe Biden, and I think he’s a middling centrist dipshit whose only role is to stop the bleeding from the Trump administration. He’s not going to go down as a great president. The withdrawl from Afghanistan⁠—a move, might I add, that Trump had planned and Biden respected⁠—was an unmitigated disaster and will likely mar the remainder of his presidency. I can acknowledge all of that, among other criticisms, without feeling like I’m personally attacking myself or other Biden supporters. For what reason do you refuse to accept criticisms of Trump as anything other than punishable-by-death heresy against your golden god?

Trump wasn’t elected by republicans. He was pushed over the line by those democrats who would never vote for General Genocide criminal conspiracy Clinton.

And look what they got in return: over 700,000 dead Americans thanks to a pandemic that Trump refused to take seriously even after he contracted COVID-19, an economy in freefall thanks in part to that pandemic (as well as tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social safety net programs), and a further divided country thanks to an administration that coined the term “alternative facts” and a man who lied to the American people all the way up to the moment he left the Oval Office.

“Winning”, amirite?

Often time you find someone with a bunch of bad ideas who happens to seek out something you strongly agree with.

If a Democrat candidate wants to outlaw abortions but their politics agree with mine in most (if not all) other aspects, I’m not voting for that candidate unless they’re the least objectionable option⁠—and even then, it’d be a hold-my-nose vote. (That was the basis for my votes for Clinton and Biden. I would’ve preferred Sanders and Warren, respectively, in those elections.) I would consider a third-party vote if we had ranked choice voting; with first-past-the-post voting, a third-party vote is akin to throwing my vote away.

That you think the q has any kind of real sway in politics shows your own bubble of understanding.

That you think QAnon assholes don’t have a sway in politics shows how much you don’t pay attention to batshit officeholders like Marjorie Taylor Greene and any other Republican politician still pushing Trump’s Big Lie. The inmates are running the asylum, as it were⁠—and it’s all because people like you elected into office a man who believes any loss he suffers must be because someone rigged the game against him…even (and especially) when he has no proof to back up his claim.

The party proper is far more tolerant than you believe.

No. No, it is not.

I am worried about the Dem slide towards the far left though.

That you think there’s even a “far left” in the United States is yet another example of the conservative brainwashing you willingly accept without question or complaint. The most “far left” thing anyone in Congress has suggested⁠—government-run healthcare⁠—is the motherfucking standard in every other industrialized country in the world. Who the fuck else has to pay $50 for a single aspirin tablet while they’re in the hospital?

You’re worried about granting more rights. I’m worried about the rights they’ll take away. Like arms. Like speech.

What about the right to vote? What about the right to an abortion? What about the right to be queer in public, including the right to marry? What about the right to remain free of forced association with religion⁠—Christianity in particular?

For all your worries about the broad-strokes rights that aren’t in any actual danger of being taken away by Democrats, you’re missing the much more specific rights that are being threatened by Republicans. You’re being told to ignore attacks against the voting rights of people of color, Roe v. Wade, the rights of transgender people, and the wall of separation between church and state.

What’s worse is, you’re actively ignoring these things because you think Republicans won’t actually go through with the plans they’ve been building to for decades⁠—plans that, thanks to the man you voted into office in 2016, could finally be realized thanks to the 6-3 conservative bent of the Supreme Court.

But hey, I’m sure you’ll be just fine under the tent of a political party with direct, open, and unapologetic ties to theocratic anti-queer Christian fascists~. I mean, it’s not like any of those people would ever help write a law that would institute the death penalty for queer people like you if given the chance, amirite~?

PaulTsays:

Re: Re:

"With Trump being a life long Democrat. That happened to be centrist"

One of those claims is laughable. The rest – didn’t you start your time of announcing hilarious bullshit here by claiming that you were a proud Trump voter? What does that make you?

"Trump wasn’t elected by republicans"

He was elected by an electoral college that ignored the votes of 3+ million Americans who voted against him. The party they belonged to is interesting, but not the core of the problem.

Stephen T. Stonesays:

It’s not a riot until the start rioting.

What the fuck would you call hundreds of people storming the steps of the Capitol, breaking into the Capitol, forcing members of Congress into hiding out of fear for their safety, and assaulting numerous police officers⁠—all of which was caught on camera⁠—on the day of the most important act in all of American democracy, all of which was done with the intent to prevent that act from being carried out? Because I’d call that a riot.

That you really think that the majority there would have allowed that to happen in the first place makes me feel very said for your faith in democratic protest.

Funny, I didn’t see a “majority” of the “protestors” at the Capitol that day trying to stop the violent rioters from breaking in windows, beating up cops, and trashing the offices of Congresspeople. (Hell, I didn’t even see anyone try to stop Ashli Babbitt…well, other than that cop.) Seems like that’s the same as “allowing” the riot to happen, at least from where I sit.

It’s obvious in your absolute denial of violence during/after BLM protests.

I don’t deny violence happens at such protests. But I do question the idea that it’s actual BLM protestors carrying out such violence, especially given how police responding to non-violent protests are often how such protests turn violent. And then there’s the people who aren’t part of such protests but use them as cover for their own malicious actions, knowing the protestors will be blamed for the violence. That’s not an excuse that can be given by the Capitol rioters; not a one of them has tried to argue that they were “undercover leftists” or whatever in court, and video evidence shows how the first people through the windows of the Capitol were carrying Trump paraphenalia (including a Trump flag).

How many people were in that corridor at the hallway? How many entered the floors?

Enough for the Capitol police to believe those people posed a threat, evacuate the Senate floor, and lead the Vice President and members of Congress into hiding for their safety. Enough for several of those members of Congress to say they legitimately feared for their lives as they heard the rioters in the halls. Enough for hundreds of people to be charged as part of the ongoing investigation into a violent insurrection meant to stop the certification of the results of the 2016 presidential election.

Is that not enough for you to take this seriously?

bad people show up to large gatherings and do bad things. It happens.

It happens a hell of a lot more when the large gatherings are made up of bad people willing to do bad things⁠—like, say, members of the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys, and other such right-wing militias.

You don’t condemn the whole for the acts of the few.

You seem more than willing to condemn the Democratic Party as “radical leftists” over the beliefs of a handful of Congressional Democrats who barely have the kind of power within the party to pull it towards the center, never mind the “radical left” that doesn’t even exist in American politics.

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

Are you going to tell me that they were all leftist plants or undercover police, too?

Why would I do that? That’s just as untruthful as saying all the BLM violence was white nazis in disguise or cops.
They were obviously far right zealots.

He was always a conservative; that you never seemed to realize it is your problem.

https://www.thoughtco.com/was-donald-trump-a-democrat-3367571
You’re absolutely flat out wrong on that.
Donald Trump was always a centrist Democrat. And much of his policy is/was centre-left.

He didn’t want secure borders. He wanted closed borders⁠—to completely shut down immigration.

Again with the MSNBCNN nonsense. No he didn’t. He made the same calls every president over the last 3 decades.
He didn’t want no immigration, he wanted no illegal immigration.
Come through the crossing. Legally.

so…hey, how’d that plan work out in the long run?

We’ll never know. Biden tossed all planing out the door and went with his own! That worked out well didn’t it now?!?

he never had a healthcare plan to show off that would’ve proven so.

No, he left that to congress. The branch of government that creates laws. It was their job to come up with something.

[link]

Yep. on the grounds that their leaders are allowing "anarchy, violence, and destruction."
On the grounds of violating federal law by obstructing federal law enforcement
On many reasonable grounds.

as long as you keep praising him without any criticism or complaint⁠—I’m going to call you a delusional ass-kisser.

I have many complaints, and have voiced them on this very site. You are simply unhappy I don’t have all the same complaints you do.

a move, might I add, that Trump had planned and Biden respected

Only in actually leaving the country. Every bit of plan of operation was ignored. Something even MSNBC can’t deny now.

For what reason do you refuse to accept criticisms of Trump as anything other than punishable-by-death heresy against your golden god?

Because much of your criticism is things I don’t criticise. See your link above ad an example.

You can blame covid on trump all you want. He’s not the one who shut down business. He’s not the one who said she’ll “never” take a vaccine developed under the trump administration.

I’ve voiced many complaints about his response to the pandemic. Such as his lack of pushing for mask use. Any protection, no matter how minimal, is better than no protection. And he should have worked with the CDC and manufacturing using executive funding to ramp up N95 mask production.

He should have worked with the CDC and USDOT for tracing.

But he didn’t tank the economy. States that shut down did. States that remained open had minimal economic hardship.

Marjorie Taylor Greene and any other Republican politician still pushing Trump’s Big Lie.

The named one is one person with little ability to do anything. And the “big lie” is a misleading headline for the far left.
In reality, as non-focused polls show, the “he won and it was stolen” crowd is quite small. The “how much fraud” crowd is far larger.
Few cling to Trump winning. Most of us realise the loss, and the reasoning. Trump didn’t loose because of any fraud. He lost because every willing Democrat and anti-Trump voter cast their vote. And the Republican turn out was less than full.
Simply put, too many Republicans didn’t trust the insecurities of the mail in system: casting no vote at all.

We’ll never know what the results would have been with 100% voting.
But vote results show a major down ticket Republican gain in 20 so it’s unlikely the election was stolen.
I don’t believe the DNC is smart enough to pull off the kind of rigging that would be required to pull just one slot. No! If the election was fraud the whole election would be. Not just one position.

No. No, it is not.

Yep, again! You take one example and claim it represents everyone.

The most “far left” thing anyone in Congress has suggested⁠—government-run healthcare⁠

No, the most far left things presented are the likes of banning plastic straws, ending meat sales, taxing mileage in private vehicle use.
Shutting down power plants before replacements are even built, let alone operational.

Most republicans aren’t against a government health care option. They’re against it being the only option.
Granted they have piss poor ideas on paying for it. Republicans use the same why tax me idea for health care as they do for schools. Don’t want to pay for things they don’t use.
And we’d all be better off if everyone had coverage so it’s perfectly reasonable to make sure the guy next door gets coverage out of my taxes.
But few are flat out against government healthcare.

What about the right to vote? What about the right to an abortion? What about the right to be queer in public, including the right to marry? What about the right to remain free of forced association with religion⁠—Christianity in particular?

Already have it
Long time problem
Already have it
Already have it (and I really don’t like that word).

Well, forced association? The word god is on our currency. Let’s start with that. But I don’t see anything of a major forced association beyond minor things. Got a reference?

As for the news FUD:
The number of citizens without government id is infinitesimal.
There’s no great attack on voting rights.
Just a failure to make sure the few that don’t have id get one supplied to them.

Roe v. Wade, is under attack. Has been since the day of the ruling.

“the rights of transgender people, “
They’re better off now than 10 years ago. And it continues to improve. It’s a place I agree with you though. We’re not going to debate once again how to get there.

and the wall of separation between church and state.

You mean the porous chain link fence. And I don’t see any major push that would force more religion. Want to show some I may be missing?

But this is your list of concerns. Not mine.
I’m more concerned about the safety of my community, my right to keep my weapons, and the attack on speech is ongoing right now. The re-editing of films, the cancel culture.
The champion of free speech Ian the one who protests what is offensive. It’s the one who fights for the right for others to BE offensive!

I mean, it’s not like any of those people would ever help write a law that would institute the death penalty for queer people like you if given the chance, amirite~?

Such a law would never pass in this country.
If it didn’t exist in the hight of the religious movements of the mid-1800s here it has zero chance of existence today.

Again, those of the far extremes are so few that they are not a threat beyond their immediate surroundings.
Not today and not in the near future.
So I’ll deal with the threats to my existence first before I worry about a potential in the future.

Lostinlodossays:

Re:

What the fuck would you call hundreds of people storming the steps of the Capitol, breaking into the Capitol, forcing members of Congress into hiding out of fear for their safety, and assaulting numerous police officers⁠—all of which was caught on camera⁠

“Storming”. More like walking?
I call the handful that caused the problems a problem. They should be prosecuted.
The rest?
No.
You are so fond of keeping the violent offenders in the blm protests separate. Why you can’t do the same here is beyond me. Though I think it has something to do with your motives and hatred for one man.

Funny, I didn’t see a “majority” of the “protestors” at the Capitol that day trying to stop the violent rioters from breaking in windows, beating up cops, and trashing the offices of Congresspeople.

Well, seeing as video evidence shows how quick the protestors were to rush to the aid of the assaulted… you’re blind.
As for those who broke in elsewhere,
Like you say ‘It’s just property’ right.

There’s a big difference in property vs murder.
How that would have played out? You have your belief and I have mine. Unlike you I’m not going to believe that people would have stood by to open blatant murder of the Vice President based on their political belief.

And then there’s the people who aren’t part of such protests but use them as cover for their own malicious actions, knowing the protestors will be blamed for the violence.

Bingo! A small group of fanatics used the cover of the capital protest for their own agenda.

2016

  1. But I get your point. Again, that is a small group acting alone. Not thousands of peaceful protestors.

Violent groups exist. And they use the cover of protest for their own goals. Happens on both sides of politics.
Whatever act of insurrection there was, it was completely separate from the majority of the protestors.

“Radical left”
I’m not what you call the squad then. Or their lapdog that happens to be the speaker of the house.

But more of their ideas make it into bill text than the likes of Green.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

This right here tells me you are disgustingly dishonest

I’m not denying that there was violence. Inside or outside. What I’m saying didn’t happen was a multi-thousand strong armed rebellion or insurrection.

Scroll up above and see the links to the security footage.
Different things happened in different places at various times.

I’m well aware of the media montages showing just the violence.

Over all, the situation is no different than most of the protests in the last two years.

Which has what relevance to people trying destroy the democratic process?

In context
“Do you have examples of people chanting "Kill the king" and waving signs saying Trump should die while forcing themselves into a federal building and assaulting the officers trying to stop them? “

“Unlike the Jan 6th,
The anti-police activists opted to just burn the federal building, including the cops inside. “

A crime is a crime.

Exactly. And those who commit the crimes should be punished!

ie people who profess to the same political belief as you do are peaceful even though they have committed criminal acts of violence.

Now that’s just shite. Not remotely what I said. Those who broke the law should be punished.

will criticize likeminded people when they do stupid shit, but you have chosen not to do that and have instead doubled down on making excuses for them and offering up irrational justifications.

You don’t actually read, do you.
I have always said that those who broke the law must be prosecuted. I just am not willing to condemn those who didn’t break any law.

Perhaps you have convinced yourself that is what happened which means you are deluded. So, what is it? Liar or deluded?

Neither. See linked video above.
You are conflating the acts of a subsection with the acts of the whole.
Again, I do not, did not, and will not deny nor condone the illegal acts of the few!
Nor will I condemn the whole based on the few. Regardless of what their protesting.

Rockysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I’m not denying that there was violence. Inside or outside. What I’m saying didn’t happen was a multi-thousand strong armed rebellion or insurrection.

It’s funny how you try to weasel your way through to that statement. If there was violence, there must have been violent "protesters" who actually (gasp!) used violence to gain entry to the Capitolium. If the purpose of the violence and the storming of the Capitolium was to interfere or stop the democratic process, guess what words describe that: rebellion, insurrection. Those words are used for those types of acts, regardless of your feelings.

Scroll up above and see the links to the security footage. Different things happened in different places at various times.

So fucking what? People overpowering the officers, smashing windows and doors to gain entry to the Capitolium in an effort to stop a democratic process is an insurrection. That some people wandered around like stupid inbred redneck tourists after the fact doesn’t change that fact.

Here’s the thing about your "I refuse to condemn those who didn’t break the law", everyone who entered the Capitolium that day, during and after the violence, broke the law. If someone wandered in later to take pictures and behaved like a pea-brained tourist, they broke the law. It’s that simple.

The people standing outside chanting and egging the violence on, they should be condemned too.

You are conflating the acts of a subsection with the acts of the whole.

No, I’m not. I’m specifically talking about the people who got or tried to get inside the Capitolium and the people standing outside chanting. I’m also talking about those who egged people on.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

See, you’re type, this is why half the country isn’t more supportive of the protests in general.
I can recognise and get past the fact that you are hypocrites. Many can’t.

When a few hundred BLM protesters turn to vandalism, then theft, then arson, then outright murder? The cops caused it. It was plants. It was someone else. Whatever excuse the first person to speak says.

I don’t need to flail or weasel or anything else.
Punish the criminals. Don’t throw the protest under the steamroller.

Play by the rules. Make your voice heard.
The right to peaceably assemble. A right of protest for redress.

What I do condemn is the hypocrisy of the approach depending on the position of the protest.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re:

"“Storming”. More like walking?"

So, breaking into a government building, destroying and stealing property, murdering security personnel and promising to sell what you stole to foreign governments is OK as long as you don’t rush it?

"I’m not what you call the squad then"

"The Squad" being moderately leftist women whose politics would be unremarkable in the rest of the world, but are massively controversial in certain parts of the US, and honestly not because they’re min ority women…

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"When a few hundred BLM protesters turn to vandalism, then theft, then arson, then outright murder? "

We will support those people being held accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately, there’s some right wing agitators being convicted right now for participating in "false flag" activities…

"Punish the criminals."

Indeed. But, you seem to be having a big problem with that happening when it’s the Trump humping criminals being punished. Why is that?

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Indeed. But, you seem to be having a big problem with that happening when it’s the Trump humping criminals being punished. Why is that?

Because you’re quite mistaken. Criminals should be prosecuted.
I’m just unwilling condemn a protest because of the actions of the few.

I’ve approached the BLM protests the same way.

Those that break the law must be heals accountable.

What angers me is after years of ‘just a small group’ being ignored in the news the whole of 1/6 is is tarred for a small group.

It’s hypocritical.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re:

Europe, for one.

Has nothing to do with the US. At all.
The Dems have the majority. They should have put a national internet system in the infrastructure bill.

They had the chance to fix the health care system. And do away with the pointless and debilitating enrolment period complexities.

Yet they fail. It’s not a left or right thing: failure.
It’s the whole of government that fails. Over and over again.
They’re too busy pandering to financiers. And too busy making sure their ghost written book sells well.
Or making headlines somewhere with a bridge to nowhere or plant a tree.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

What’s a jan 6 commission going to look for besides being yet another hyper-partisan waste of tax money?

Everyone (or nearly) who broke the law has been filmed or photographed.
The majority of those law breakers are already charged or pending charge.

It’s not even that rare an occurrence! As I’ve laid out elsewhere on this site, some group or other penetrates the capital every few decades.

We don’t need another partisan display.
Maybe it’s time to do a Penetrated the Capital Commission.
Because the reality of this is not what happened that is of “real” concern, but why/by whom. And that’s not the thing to focus on!

Maybe a few extra senators being scared (and not the ones miles away from the capital) this time would cause a commission to convene to do something about the security of the building. Rather than spend weeks or months looking at ways to fabricate some ten times removed connection to Trump farting and breaking a blade of grass on protected land:
They figure out how to make this not happen again.

Over all, this was still rather non-violent. Compared to prior penetrations.
Eventually one of these instances is going to be another barn burner!

So the tldr take away is:
Focus on the problem (the capital was penetrated) and not more “Trump’s fault” crap.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

A thousand people didn’t storm into the capital. Thousands of people we ate the rally, and the following protest yes.
But thousands did NOT enter the capital by any means.

A few dozen, not several hundred, through the entry. As the security footage confirms.

The story of the media and the reality are two separate things.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

You use the same criteria, only a few indulged in illegal behaviour to excuse the sedition at the capitol, and condemn the BLM antifa rallies. That shows just how far you will go to make your tribe right and everybody else wrong. Also the politicians you are supporting care not a jot about you rights, but only about the rights of their sponsors, the very rich, to exploit everybody else for their personal profit.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

"A thousand people didn’t storm into the capital. Thousands of people we ate the rally, and the following protest yes. "

Obviously a hundred news channels were all sending a real-timed deep fake then. Because there is no nation in any part of the world where what we all saw on TV was not considered a violent riot.

So once again, Lostinlodos, you’re as full of shit as the original Baghdad Bob was. This exculpation of self-evident empirical observation is sickening.

"The story of the media and the reality are two separate things."

It really isn’t. And even the Fox news footage clearly shows it.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though

Obviously a hundred news channels were all sending a real-timed deep fake then.

The obvious is it’s apparently Ohkay to call a protest a riot based on the lesser subsection there, as long as it’s something you directly support. As done as something you don’t support turns…?

I’n not denying violent actors. I’m defending the non-violent protest.
The vast majority of the the whole that day.

The vast majority did not go beyond civil protest.

It’s the hypocrisy of reaction that has me pissed of so royally!

Violent or not. Police shot a woman. But it’s ohkay because the unarmed woman had a chair. And broke a window. No discussion on lethality here.

We had vandalism, not arson.
I’d go so far as to say some, a literally half dozen, should likely be charged for domestic terrorism.

But where is the commission on the torching of the federal courthouse, with people inside? Where the commission on the on the billion plus dollar riots in Chicago. Where’s the commissioner on the illegal occupation of an armed group in Washington?
How about the republican senator assaulted in DC on their way to dinner by undeniably BLM protestors, not “plants”.

Yes, there was criminal unrest during a protest at the capital building. But this is being played far greater than it was in reality.
And the Republican pushback is not denying it happened. It’s fighting against a smear campaign that is
a, over casting on actors, and
b, focusing on the act and not a solution.

The pushback is the overreaction to this incident after all the other violence, including outright terrorism, since the death of Floyd.

The claims of “last straw” or “but it’s the Capital” or “but…but…”.

That you can’t even understand my own annoyance without immediately throwing me into some illicit grouping is clear evidence of the problem.

It’s an overreaction to a single case and an underreaction to the whole situation nationwide.

Scary Devil Monasterysays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though

"I’n not denying violent actors. I’m defending the non-violent protest."

There was no such thing on january the 6th. Those protestors were literally demanding a coup from the get-go. Meanwhile the vast majority of BLM was a chant of "Stop killing us".

The only thing you keep proving – again and again – is that you’re doubling down on somehow a march against being murdered is identical as a march to literally overthrow the government.

"Violent or not. Police shot a woman. But it’s ohkay because the unarmed woman had a chair. And broke a window. No discussion on lethality here."

Yes, if you break into a government building after repeatedly being told to stop the police will eventually resort to force. This is not hypocrisy until you manage to equate the situation of "unarmed protestor clearly not threatening anyone" to "Protestor breaking and entering federal premises while screaming about murdering the VP"
Those two situations are not the same. Is it that in one case the protagonist was black and thus more inherently threatening?

"But where is the commission on the torching of the federal courthouse, with people inside? Where the commission on the on the billion plus dollar riots in Chicago. Where’s the commissioner on the illegal occupation of an armed group in Washington? "

I think most liberals would welcome a commission like that. Republicans would sink it at once, however, because in those specific cases the first thing which will emerge is the summary "A peaceful protest was viciously attacked by law enforcement officers in the line of duty and things escalated..".

But I’ll go along with you on this. Punish, in the case of BLM, everyone, uniformed or not, who committed violence, to the fullest extent of what the law allows.

What I will not go along with is the equation – the idea that this is in any way similar. One protest, violent or not, stood for civil rights. The other stood for overturning the government and abolishing a democratic election. The stakes – and damages – are different.

"The pushback is the overreaction to this incident after all the other violence, including outright terrorism, since the death of Floyd. "

Floyd, Rodney King…again and again and again. US law enforcement has an official kill rate of black people under murky or unproven reason exceeding that of the Klan in its heyday. After about four centuries of society failing to achieve anything resembling equality in this regard I’m willing to extend a benefit of doubt to black people marching for their rights. Less so for trailer trash for whom the idea that the police isn’t their friend is so alien a lot of them went on camera in disbelief at the idea that what they did might be considered illegal.

"That you can’t even understand my own annoyance without immediately throwing me into some illicit grouping is clear evidence of the problem. "

Because your annoyance stems from equating two extremely different situations with different stakes, different means, different ends…as if somehow a BLM protest about US law enforcement being so fucked up an officer could deliberately and torturously murder a black man in the street in the apparent belief he’d walk away from it like so many times before…could be equated to a horde of people willing to stage a coup because Dear Leader told them to.

One of those situations merits a thorough look at the decades of provocations leading up to it. The other concerns a grifting would-be dictator ordering a flock of adherents to overturn the government with a coup.

Of course I’m ascribing you malicious motive. Facts and context in hand you are trying to tell us the quiet kid in class who always does his best and snapped once after being picked on by the schoolyard bullies for years is the same as the kids who stormed the principals office demanding the faculty give the career thug of the schoolyard the highest grading. While chanting slogans about beating up the dean.

I’ll say it again. These situations are not the same. And treating them as if they are means you’re either dangerously ill informed or doubling down on a very specific type of vested interest.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though

overturning the government and abolishing a democratic election

Well, the call was for an investigation. For a clear and through investigation. And many demanded recounts, or new elections.
This is part of the problem! It’s propaganda!
Very, very, few said remove Biden and seat Trump. With no other steps.

Floyd, Rodney King…again and again and again.

Jan 6, A16, May Day, King, the liquor sellers… same again and again…
Protests turn to riots when nobody listens.
I’m with you on that aspect. But it’s non partisan!

equating two extremely different situations with different stakes, different means…

The means are the same. Violence.
As soon as it turns to violence you have lost your moral high ground.

You forget just how quick the Democrats, rightfully, we’re to contes 2000 and 2004.
If Trump had been declared the 20 winner I have no doubt the situation would be the same and the protestors would have been party swapped.

But the way it’s been painted as an insurrection… it’s just not accurate.

The demand was to verify each and every vote by hand with within-sight auditors. At least.
Or revote: in person, at best.

PaulTsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though:

"What’s a jan 6 commission going to look for besides being yet another hyper-partisan waste of tax money?"

Probably a lot more than the endless Benghazi commissions looked for.

"Everyone (or nearly) who broke the law has been filmed or photographed.
The majority of those law breakers are already charged or pending charge."

OK? That doesn’t mean that the people who avoided being caught on camera should get away with it, only that it takes more work to locate them and bring them to justice.

"Maybe a few extra senators being scared"

Such as the vice president being directly threatened with execution, who was in a room where he could easily have been found had a cop not effectively directed them away from where he was located?

"Over all, this was still rather non-violent"

More American citizens died in the process of it happening than Benghazi, and it was a direct attack on the seat of US democracy rather than an overseas embassy in an area of political conflict. So, hopefully it’s clear why people aren’t willing to shrug their shoulder and wave it away rather than investigate what can be done to defend the nation the next time some group doesn’t like the outcome of an election.

Lostinlodossays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's the difference though

What does Benghazi have to do with anything?

investigate what can be done to defend the nation the next time some group doesn’t like the outcome of an election

More accurately next time a group of people get mad at the government. For any reason. Why is the capital building constantly breached over and over and over.
Why do they neither have things in place to STOP such breaches.

But instead they seek to find personal blame for Trump despite the unequivocal “March peaceful” declaration.
That much is clear as they continue to speak of “his actions” and “his words”none of which remotely called for violent conflict.

Maybe, go to the actual source of the problem?
How is the capital so poorly defended that dozens of people can simple storm in unhindered.

Because if this had been an actual insurrection rather than a protest turned violent? If there had actually been hundreds of people with intent on overthrow? Not just some tin hat militia wannabes?

Because the focus should be on how yet again a small gaggle of dissidents forced their way into the inner halls.
And what would happen if there ever was a real insurrection!
Seriously, how many times must this happen before congress learns to put aside differences and figure out a way to protect everyone in that building!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...