Are you being ironic? Do you think the Dems will spend any time worrying about the victims of this event, now it turns out the shooter was trans? It shouldn't even be a factor. But because it goes against the narrative, expect this one to die a death in the media.
Don't they all die a death in the media anyway? That's how this cycle continues to happen: Someone shoots up a school > widespread reporting, everyone sending thoughts and prayers but no real changes happen > media cycle continues and it slips out of sight. And repeat.
Yes. I agree. But if there is a chance to politicise a shooting as a white supremacist, anti-trans, or, in the parallel case of Paul Pelosi, a pro MAGA motivation, then whatever capital that can be milked tends to be milked, before it is forgotten about. MAGA lunatics and there guns are the problem. All other lunatics and there guns are, it sometimes seems, as equally victims as those they shot/ran over. Take a look at the Waukesha Christmas parade attack... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_parade_attack And consider whether you would never have heard of it, unless for me bringing it up, if a white guy called Ryle Kittenhaus had been driving the car, and all the people mown down were black Americans. It would be the most notorious case in recent US history. But the political circumstances were not right to make it so. It was only whitey.
A measured response: https://twitter.com/RepOgles/status/1640406208942161942 Except, people remember the Ogles' Xmas card:
Did they shoot anyone? Gun ownership in the US is crazy. But the majority of owners do take that ownership seriously. There is a massive difference between an unhinged lunatic walking into school and shooting three children and three teachers dead, and, say, a family that takes its second amendment rights seriously, albeit with some humour that we Brits find a trifle tasteless. For that matter, you can even consider that Kyle Rittenhaus was remarkably well disciplined, being in the middle of a riot where virtually every member of the crowd wanted him dead, and still had the self control to refrain from firing randomly, only opening fire on his specific attackers after they attacked him. I take it, also, that the Ogles only sent their Christmas cards to friends, sharing their silly joke among like minded people. It’s not clever. But in a country where the majority of people/families own guns, it is hardly damning evidence of deadly intent, such as was shown by the actual shooter, who you don’t want to talk about, for some reason. Applying our (mercifully) gun free morals to a country that has, across the political board, embraced gun ownership for 250 years seems a little bit naive, really.
Why not get up in arms about all of them? Why not address the issue of mental health that is at the heart of these attacks. Some are with guns, some with machettes and knives, some with vehicles and some with bombs. But every one of them involves a perpetrator with mental health issues. But the Dems only seem to be agitated by the tools they use, or when there is a chance to gain political points. And then you have deaths through gang violence. Statistically, a Black American is many, many times safer in a street full of White police officers than they would be in a street full of black Americans. Yet the Dems will not tolerate any discussion of that topic, and their DAs seem to be making it easier for violent offenders to get back on the street.
No comment on this? Funny how the conversation always seems to peeter out when broader reality is introduced.
By comparing how many people get killed by police officers, and how many people get killed by non-police officers. It was quite easy really. By what mehtodology, may I ask, did you come to your conclusion that police officers were killed on Jan 6? By comparing reality with the requirements of your ideological desperation, perchance? I won't expect an answer to my question. As per your usual MO.
No, that’s meaningless. Show your work, what was the data behind this incredible research or quote where you got it from. Let’s also have the comparison data for other ethnic groups. As the Police are not really supposed to be killing people, it’s underwhelming from the off, but when they do, it appears they are far more likely to kill a black person. Here’s a study from Harvard. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/blacks-whites-police-deaths-disparity/
Slight side note, but as incredible as it sounds most US police forces don't keep statistics on how many fatalities they inflicts during the line of duty (last I saw it was about 35 out of 17,000 precincts), and the only data available for these sorts of studies is based on what journalists have pieced together through tracking what hits the news cycles. As a result, it's pretty much impossible to know what the reality is, but it seems inevitable that the true number of fatalities is far higher than we know about. I believe the FBI was going to start trying to track this a while back but I haven't heard anything about it in a while so it's very possible it got quietly killed off after Comey was fired. Sessions certainly seemed to be trying to undo some of the progress from what little we saw at the time. The key takeaway is US police shooting statistics are almost certainly a significant undercount.
First of all, it is incredibly revealing that you make some ridiculous comment about the police not really being supposed to kill people. Saying such a thing appears to give the impression that this only applies to the police, and that US citizens have no obligation to keep the peace, and not commit murder. A very strong indicator of the child like thinking you apply to the objecs of your ideological simplicities. But, here you go... https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls And here are the figures on US ethnicity... https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity I am only doing this because you asked me to. The statistics do not reflect on all black Americans, just as they do not reflect on all white Americans. You asked specifically for these figures to be broken down into ethnicity, so if you find them offensive to your virtuous soul, you have yourself to thank. If you were to normalise those homicide figures (treat them as if the number of black Americans was the same as the number of white Americans), you would have to miltiply the figures by 4.9, indicating that any person in the united states is 5.4 times more likely to be murdered by a black American than by a white American. It also indicates that, proportionately, a white American is 1.2 times more likely to be murdered by a black American than by a white American. That, proportionately, a black American is 56 (fifty-six) times more likely to be killed by another black American than by a white American. That black Americans murder a considerably higher proportion of any race group than occurs in the opposing statistic and a far higher proportion of any race group than the white American majority. What does this mean for the figures in your Harvard study? That the number of black Americans shot by police is significantly disproportionate to the far higher proportion of black Americans that are statistically likely to murder a fellow American. This, whenever these Harvard studies are brought out, is constently pointed out as a flaw in the arguments they are being used to make, and, indeed, a number of such studies have been used to defend the police, based on such propensities. US appear to kill around 1000 people a year... https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ That Washington Post article is very careful not to mention the number of black Americans killed, nor to break it down into how many were armed and resisting arrest, compared to unarmed. No matter. Even if you considered every single one of the police victims to be black, it still vindicates the commennt I made. And remember, some of the cops doing the killings are also black Americans. And no, I don't care if you couldn't be bothered to read this. And no, I still don't expect you to explain the method you used to come to the conclusion that any police officers were killed in the Jan 6 riot.
Even by your standards, this is extraordinary bs. Ridiculous extrapolations from data where the Police are not even mentioned. Just so you can claim that black people are their own worst enemy, the most simplistic take on crime of all time. The chasm in your reasoning is that not every violent act ending in a death is considered a ‘Homicide’ and a table about it is not the last word on crime. Yours is the most simplistic and false argument conjured up to affirm your beliefs. As for your silly question about ‘killed’. I was very careful not to write that. But Police officers died as a consequence of Jan 6th, that much is clear. Shame you are not bothered by that.
Not my fault if you can’t read. I gave links to homicide statistics, ethnicity in the US and an article on police homicides. You have to make up rubbish in an attempt to create the flimsiest link. If I was arguing that every police death by natural causes and by suicide since the BLM riots was the responsibility of fa (formerly known as antifa), you would rightly call me out for doing so. Yet that is all you have. You are doing the flat earther thing that I described. No police officer died on Jan 6, nor did any officer died as a result of it according to coroners reports and police investigations (there was an investigation, now closed, into officer Sicknick’s death, using video and coroners evidence, and no charges were brought, and his cause of death described as natural). And yet you will not even acknowledge or discuss the four people that did die, not even the one who was shot without warning by a security officer. All you are doing here is demonstrating your ability to pull your pud all the way over your head. There is no confusion as to who, of the two of us, is averse to the facts and who is prepared to actually discuss them. The only source you have quoted can equally be used to demonstrate the proportional disparity. And, as predicted, you have even attempted to make out that my breaking down homicide into ethnicity is racism on my part. DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS YOU THAT ADKED ME TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO ETHNICITY. So what does that make you? Based on your accusations against me.
Interesting that no one is commenting on the Trump indictment. Is it a sense of embarrasment or uneaseabout the politicisation of the legal system? I am happy to wait until the details come out. The Stormy Daniels issue is one thing, but there are, apparently, another couple of dozen things involved that we do not know the details of, yet. It may actually be that there is something in there to get hot and bothered about. But if there is nothing of any greater substance, than the hush money case, I may maintain my skeptical view of the whole thing. I just hope that Republicans will continue to hold back on protests, as the restraint they have shown up until now has been the most frustrating thing for Democrats. They have set the scene, but there have, so far, not been any violent insurrectionists step up to the plate. As the J6 prosecutions have shown, any MAGA protest will be treated as insurrection. I would be appealing, now, on third party nations to closely observe what is going on. With the only suggestion that MAGA and Republican supporters are violent rebels being J6 itself and the comedy committee, and remembering that the score on the day, if you include natural causes (as some like to do ) was Capitol Security 4 - 0 MAGA, I wonder if this might finally be the one to bring people back to reality, rather than the one that finally gets Trump. But whatever. If he broke the law, he should be tried (you see, I am not biased about pursuing the law, whether it is an election issue or a criminal prosecution). And may the precedents being set right now be equally applied to all Presidents, both former and uncumbent.
Wonderful moment in the committee hearing on the weaponisation of federal government yesterday. The Democrat ranking member cynically offered to yield time to any of the Republican members if they wished unreservedly condemn the violence on Jan 6. She quickly claimed back her time when everyone of the republicans took up her offer, and condemned it totally, also stating that they did so from the start! She denied they did, but thankfully it is all on the record. She seems to be of the same school of realism as some of the posters on here. That was a massive back fire on her, even if it will be of little consequence in the scheme of things. But if anything goes viral from yesterday, it should be that.
My personal view is politicians (or indeed anyone elected, including judges) shouldn't be involved in the criminal justice process full stop. I cringe at the current proposal for government ministers over here to be able to decide whether prisoners get parole or not, so the whole US system seems bonkers to me. Nonetheless, it's the system they have. Charges can only be brought after a jury of citizens hears evidences and agrees them. Arguably there's a safeguard of sorts built in against a politically motivated prosecutor simply pressing the 'indictment' button alone. I accept of course there are places where it could be easier to find a grand jury prepared to charge Trump than others, though I don't know if that's theory rather than reality. And I agree with your stance I think. I've no idea if he's guilty or not but I dare say we'll find out in the fullness of time. I'm not sure I'd want to prosecute a case which has Michael Cohen's testimony as its bedrock.
So. To sum up. New York does not have a case, as described in the indictment. The charges are only felonies because the payments were made to cover up other crimes. But, and it is a big but, Trump has not even been charged with any crimes he is supposed to have covered up, let alone found guilty of them. If the Judge allows the prosecution to describe speculated and uncharged issues as crimes, the case will be laughed out of the appeal court, and Bragg will possibly be disbarred. If he doesn't, I can't see how it progresses beyond the early motions. It is a Democrat political prosecution in New York though, so you never can tell. Is there anyone, who wants to see Trump go down, feeling any embarrassment about this? There must be more to it. But it does not appear to be in the indictment.
Well that’s a bit awkward. I think he was expecting cheers, but seems to have got derision, even from the media. Is America waking up?
Is that an AI depiction of your fever dream? This is actually what you see? Yet even some of Trump's strongest critics are saying that this is a trumped up case that will struggle in court. But you see that. All you are doing is making sure that everyone understands your most unhinged inner issues. It is like watching someone hold a public session with a psychiatrist.
That is perfect. If you remove the Trump references and replace them with references to election concerns, Joe Biden's business dealings, DOJ biases in its proecutions, Clinton's destruction of official documents, etc., then this video is addressing exactly the type of issue I have been tackling with you guys over the last few years. There is massive irony in this post. It is directly taking the mick out of the exact behaviour you have been demonstrating, and Democrats in general, with regards to your reactions whenever your political opposition call for legal examination of Democrat behaviour. If DAs think Trump has broken the law, they should prosecute him. I would rather they be judged on their actions, as Bragg is now being judged, than be stopped from demonstrating their biases for people to see them for what they are. There is far more to be achieved by letting low lifes do low life things, in public, than there is from stopping them from making a fool of themselves in the first place. It is like I say about you guys. Your own words, as with the above post, say far more negative things about you than I ever do. I just remind you that you said them
Only that is complete rubbish. The 34 counts were, literally, references to invoices (that mentioned only retainer services), dockets for the invoices and cheques in payment of the invoices, for serialised payments made to Cohen. The US still has a presumption of innocence, even if Nancy Pelosi believes it is for Trump to prove his innovence. Connections to Daniels and McDougal are yet to be made, and were not, even in the explanatory notes on the indictment, made explicit. I know it is of no matter to you, because you are not interested in any facts, but people reading the article you have linked to are being deliberately lied to and misled. But then, that is most likely what they require in order to maintain their desire to pleasure themselves over Trump prosecution porn. You could prove it to yourself, if you wanted to. The indictment, widely available, does not mention McDougal, and only refers to the payments to Cohen and the documentation that requested them. What is happening to Trump is what happened to Jews in Germany in the early 20th Century. I am surprised that anyone on this forum is comfortable with that, no matter how much they dislike the Orange Man. To be clear, I am not referring to the prosecution, because that will be tried in front of a judge and jury, and rightly so, if the DA sees fit (both he and Trump can be judged on the outcome). But the article you just posted, without a shadow of a doubt, is misinformation intentded to allow people like you to justify fascism, because it is just a bunch of lies intended to wind up a deranged mob. IMHO. Go on. Read the indictment, and tell me if it mentions McDougal, as your piece that is 'worth reading' states. Then look yourself in the mirror, maybe. Ask yourself if you are being lied to, or if you are seeking validation, when you say that it is worth reading.
Of course. Because if you put it in context you would prove the point I am making. BW posted an article that is completely false, attempting to rouse a brainless mob against Trump and people who agree with him. It is proveably false, and you, BW and Sydney know that. That is EXACTLY what happened to the Jews at the hands of the nazis in the twentieth century. So the only question that remains is whether you are sleep walking, or promoting the narrative. Which is the question I asked BW. Are you victims, or part of it? Why you think it is OK, even laudable, in the current day, is baffling. That is not me accusing you of anything. It is you guys openly celebrating behaviour that is identical to that of the worst imaginable fascists, and for some reason thinking you have the moral ground when I point it out to you. There can be no question that this is what you are doing. You are painting yourselves as fascists, and then patting yourselves on the back. And now you are going to report me to the mods again, and all I am doing is repeating what you are doing. Good luck. I hope they can see through it. I won't leave it at that, you can be sure. I will always justify what I say, and everyone on here, no matter how much they dislike me saying it, knows I will do that, and not just bleat and run, like you. Can one of you, at least, avail yourselves of the facts, like reading the indictment to clarify the point I have made? Nah. You are not interested in reality, because in its midst, your narrative dissolves in a puff of pantomime smoke. Blooming flat earthers.
Thank you for so willingly demonstrating the point I am making. Seeking out 21st century fascism, in order to prevent the offences to humanity caused by nazis and communists a hundred years ago is a worthy cause. And even if you do not see that you are painting yourself on the side of the bad guys, I appreciate that your actions here highlight what you are actually doing, and the wilfulness with which you confess to it. A mask off moment. You believe it is acceptable to lie to rouse the mob against political opponents. We all know what people that do such things have been historically labelled as. And you have just made yourself a badge from it. Go to the mods. Just remember that you are the only person that has associated your profile with that behaviour. I merely described it, and you defended it, without challenge of the facts, appology, retraction or explanation. You do yourself far more harm than I ever do.
I am quite happy to let the judicial system run its course in the US. I have no idea if Trump is guilty of the charges brought against him but a jury believed there is enough evidence to indict him. I don't believe these charges are the most serious that he is facing but there is definitely a case to answer. Whether he is convicted is down to whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the court of his guilt. But I suspect the reason Trump supporters are going after the "he's being persecuted by the political elite" line is they are preparing for a guilty verdict. It then becomes a no lose for Trump. Win and it "proves" his innocence. Lose and it "proves" the courts are corrupt political institutions that are bringing him down because of his views. I honestly think that this will actually enhance his chances of being elected next year whichever way it goes. If it were politically motivated it is, imho, a huge mistake from his opponents. The political element to the US judiciary is not one I think is healthy, but to compare the legal process underway against Trump to the persecution of the Jews in Germany last century is despicable to say the least.
There is no question that there is a case worthy of examination, based on the DA's assertions that he has evidence connecting them to other crimes. I agree with that 100%. But it must not be forgotten that the intention of the trial is to make that connection, and not for Trump to prove there is no connection. That is the presumption of innocence, if you people are a bit shaky on the facts. Don't be upset that I am pointing out the obvious things. Nancy Pelosi has stated that Trump will have the right to a trial to prove his innocence, I kid you not. The charges are, however, misdemeanors that are outside of statute limitations, and were not prosecuted, despite being considered (and rejected) by two different DAs (one of whom is the same DA that has now decided to prosecute them) whilst they were within the statute. They have been elevated to Felonies on the grounds that they were committed to cover up actual crimes that have not yet been either charged, tried or even adequately described, and the star witnesses are Cohen, a convicted liar whose evidence will have to (once again) contradict his previous testimony, and Stormy Daniels, who has previously provided written testimony that no affair occurred. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried, but it also doesn't mean that the presumption of innocence should be forgone, because Trump. All counts are regarding records of payments to Cohen. They are not linked, in themselves, to anything other than services rendered, and no one, not even Trump's greatest enemies (not the sane ones anyway) are saying that making the link is going to be an easy job for Bragg. I have no problem with anyone wanting this trial to take place. I am not a particular fan of Trump as a person; the reason I like him is because of his anti-establishment credentials. What I don't like is the involvement of fascistic methods in political shenanigins with the apparent encouragement of senior political figures; because that is getting towards the thick end of the wedge. The article posted by BW is factual rubbish, aimed at antagonising the mob against Trump using lies. Again, that is exactly what the nazis did to the Jews in the last century. That there are people on this forum liking and promoting such behaviour is a great sadness to me. I would, and believe have, pointed out unfair behaviour whoever it was directed at on this forum, and decry fascist behaviour whereever it comes from. Why I get attacked by Moose for doing so, we can only guess. But that is his choice, and I cannot stop him.
