What She Saw

[xenon]

@copper said in What She Saw:

@89th said in What She Saw:

Overall a good article and read.

However, when I read this, it casted doubt on her overall view.

"I heard President Trump praise many members of Congress, but heard nothing to incite violence"

Except for these lines, right?

• these people [protesters] aren’t going to take it anymore!
• we will never give up
• we will never concede
• we will stop the steal
• we are not gonna let it happen
• we must save our democracy
• were not going to stand and let this country be destroyed (he says variations of this about 30x btw)
• people are illegally taking over our government
• if you don’t fight like hell we aren’t going to have a country anymore

None of that advocates violence.

Those are the same lines you have every politician in the world repeat endlessly.

The TDS adds the violence.

Why bother?

What's your position on this? Did Trump do anything wrong? Do you think all President's should "fight" like this at the end of their term?

[Copper]

@xenon said in What She Saw:

What's your position on this? Did Trump do anything wrong? Do you think all President's should "fight" like this at the end of their term?

I thought my position was obvious above: None of that advocates violence.

anything? That covers a lot of ground.

All presidents who believe the election results are wrong should confirm it. How could they not want to confirm it?

I think the TDS folks think people who support the president are crazy. They even think the president is crazy for supporting the president.

[89th]

@horace said in What She Saw:

@89th said in What She Saw:

Overall a good article and read.

However, when I read this, it casted doubt on her overall view.

"I heard President Trump praise many members of Congress, but heard nothing to incite violence"

Except for these lines, right?

• these people [protesters] aren’t going to take it anymore!
• we will never give up
• we will never concede
• we will stop the steal
• we are not gonna let it happen
• we must save our democracy
• were not going to stand and let this country be destroyed (he says variations of this about 30x btw)
• people are illegally taking over our government
• if you don’t fight like hell we aren’t going to have a country anymore

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric behind the riots of 2020, which were also based on a fictitious cultural narrative. But somehow the slippery slope started right now, with Trump. I think that's strange.

I completely agree.

[Loki]

@89th said in What She Saw:

@horace said in What She Saw:

@89th said in What She Saw:

Overall a good article and read.

However, when I read this, it casted doubt on her overall view.

"I heard President Trump praise many members of Congress, but heard nothing to incite violence"

Except for these lines, right?

• these people [protesters] aren’t going to take it anymore!
• we will never give up
• we will never concede
• we will stop the steal
• we are not gonna let it happen
• we must save our democracy
• were not going to stand and let this country be destroyed (he says variations of this about 30x btw)
• people are illegally taking over our government
• if you don’t fight like hell we aren’t going to have a country anymore

Sounds a lot like the rhetoric behind the riots of 2020, which were also based on a fictitious cultural narrative. But somehow the slippery slope started right now, with Trump. I think that's strange.

I completely agree.

I can’t help but react to all this the same way I would the BLM and anarchist protests. Imagine what happened at the Capitol was BLM, Antifa etc... any rationalization would need to be applied equally to all protests.

[Aqua Letifer]

@loki said in What She Saw:

Imagine what happened at the Capitol was BLM,

Except there were several BLM protests in DC last year and none of them led to Congressmen hiding in undisclosed locations and the suspension of government.

Now it is true that a lot of property was destroyed, but hey, the Capitol invaders have that covered too.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

Except there were several BLM protests in DC last year and none of them led to Congressmen hiding in undisclosed locations and the suspension of government.

Congressmen's Congresspersons' lives matter.

Remember during the Floyd protests when Trump was taken to a bunker and was accused of being a coward?

This was happening:

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in What She Saw:

Congressmen's Congresspersons' lives matter.
Remember during the Floyd protests when Trump was taken to a bunker and was accused of being a coward?
This was happening:

Can we stop with all this?

George, do you honestly think:

1. BLM (not Antifa, BLM) protests were worse in outcome than the Capitol invasion
2. Trump is not responsible for anything that happened last Wednesday

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

George, do you honestly think:

1. BLM (not Antifa, BLM) protests were worse in outcome than the Capitol invasion

In terms of what? Property damage? Loss of life? What do you mean "worse."

2. Trump is not responsible for anything that happened last Wednesday

This is a legal question and a political one.

Legally, this is a high bar to get over.

Politically, let the chips fall where they may. Having said that, comments from Vice-President Elect Harris. Rep. Waters, and other government officials are to be considered."Punch them in the face," Senator Tester? Really? Hillary Clinton "You can't be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for." Former AG Holder, "When they go low, we kick them." Rep. Joaquin Castro, "We fight him...in the streets."

I fail to see how the ignoring of one leads to condemnation of the other.

"In the streets"
"Kick them"
"In the face"
"Protests should continue" - as DC burns.

Show me how these are not incitements, and then I'll stop the whataboutism. If you can't, then, well, there you go.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in What She Saw:

In terms of what? Property damage? Loss of life? What do you mean "worse."

In terms of what you personally find to be most troublesome.

This is a legal question and a political one.

Well we agree there. I absolutely think the courts should be involved.

Show me how these are not incitements, and then I'll stop the whataboutism. If you can't, then, well, there you go.

I think there's a difference between publicly validating events while ignoring their destruction and violence, and trying to gin up support for overturning an election decision.

In other words, the two incidents are not at all the same. That's not shorthand for BLM gets a pass. I mean they need to be evaluated separately. The internet's full of lazy false equivocations that only perpetuate the problem.

[Copper]

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

1. BLM (not Antifa, BLM) protests were worse in outcome than the Capitol invasion

One outcome is BLM stenciled on the back of NFL helmets
Another is the speaker calling "whiteness" the cause of the invasion

It's worse for non-BLM members
And worse for those with "whiteness"

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

2. Trump is not responsible for anything that happened last Wednesday

Anything? That covers a lot of ground
But did he incite a riot? I don't think so.
I really don't.

Would his words have caused me to invade? No.

Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

I think there's a difference between publicly validating events while ignoring their destruction and violence, and trying to gin up support for overturning an election decision.

And there, you and I disagree. Inciting violence, or at least encouraging the continuation of it (cf Harris's comments) is fundamentally no different from what you claim Trump did. The only difference is the circumstances.

Validating events while ignoring destruction is OK.
Ginning up support for overthrowing an election is bad.

The methods are the same. The only difference is the motivation.

Are you saying that the end justifies the means?

Condemning one while ignoring the other, well, "These are my standards. If you don't like them, I have others."

[Mik]

How are the lives and business of everyday Americans less sacrosanct than a governmental function, even an election? Hundreds of thousands of Americans' lives, businesses, property, safety, freedom, bodies and health were jeopardized and threatened by the BLM stuff.

Preserving and protecting those very things are the exact job of Congress. They failed, and in fact used it for political benefit.

Now, tell me which is worse.

[Renauda]

@copper said in What She Saw:

Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.

So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?

[Doctor Phibes]

@copper said in What She Saw:

Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.

Who organized the initial protest rally?

[Loki]

@aqua-letifer said in What She Saw:

@loki said in What She Saw:

Imagine what happened at the Capitol was BLM,

Except there were several BLM protests in DC last year and none of them led to Congressmen hiding in undisclosed locations and the suspension of government.

Now it is true that a lot of property was destroyed, but hey, the Capitol invaders have that covered too.

To be clear I am not asserting they are equivalent. Recall the broken windows theory however. Violence has been tolerated and in many cases celebrated in the past year. It’s not okay. Period. Full stop.

[Aqua Letifer]

@george-k said in What She Saw:

Validating events while ignoring destruction is OK.
Ginning up support for overthrowing an election is bad.

I didn't say anything like that. I said the actions were different, which they are.

[Aqua Letifer]

@mik said in What She Saw:

Now, tell me which is worse.

Threatening an election is worse than blocking up streets.
Killing a police officer is worse than burning down a building.
Ginning up mass dissent for months by feeding the public with a pack of lies is as bad as giving arsonists a pass.

[Mik]

Oh, come on, you can do better than that.

They are not threatening an election, they are protesting an election they believe was fraudulent. Why didn't you pick graffiti instead of blocking streets? Just as absurd a comparison.

The police officer killed was at least involved. The BLM protests yielded police officers deliberately killed in ambushes while they sat in their cars, nowhere near a protest. Which is worse?

Don't you think the BLM protestors were egged on by ginned up lies?

The argument that 1/6 was SO MUCH WORSE just doesn't wash.

[Copper]

@renauda said in What She Saw:

@copper said in What She Saw:

Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.

So it wasn't sponateous? Outside third parties involved? An inside job? Was the POTUS just a muggins?

I have no idea, but several seemed to have tools used to break barriers. Maybe they bought them from street vendors near the Capitol.

[Copper]

@doctor-phibes said in What She Saw:

@copper said in What She Saw:

Would the invasion have happened no matter what he said? Based on the obvious planning by the invaders, I'd say yes.

Who organized the initial protest rally?

The peace loving president.