So you don’t think the nazis lied about the Jews then? Seriously? Are you guys openly defending nazis now? Or, could it be that you haven’t read a word I said, and don’t really care? The behaviour you guys are defending, without any encouragement from me, is deeply unpleasant. It doesn’t reflect well at all.
This is a nice summary of the state of the Union today, and the United State's currently shifting standing in the world. The summary (and yes, it is a bit of a rant) comes between 3.30 and 5.20. Sorry it is from a Fox clip, a Black Conservative that I subscribe to clipped it in their show and this is the shortest version I can find. Please, just ignore the host's fear porn; US mainstream media is diabolical. I imagine that none of you are going to be bothered, but it is there if you want to know how people are starting to see the US and its CRT social experiment under Biden, and I don't think this guy says anything that can seriously be described as misinformation, incorrect, or even exaggerated. The suspension of disbelief, it may be hoped, is becoming more and more difficult to maintain.
Axios has a nice, succinct summary of how Jan 6 related charges are currently playing out. https://www.axios.com/2023/04/06/jan6-riots-doj-charged
Yes. Thank you for this... "931 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds, including 102 who face charges for entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon" So. Deadliest and most bloody insurrection ever = 821 sight seers = 100 carrying sticks and or water bottles (some of the sticks may have been sharp) = 2 men with guns, neither of which were brandished, one of whom ditched his weapon as soon as he realised he shouldn't be carrying it. Goodness. If there hadn't been 20 police men (non of whom died) and a couple of museum guards handy, the country may have been lost to slightly bloody rebellion for more than just a couple of hours. Or maybe not. But thanks for a reminder of how under whelming the insurrection was.
Any idea how silly this is starting to sound to anyone that hasn't been brain washed by the establishment?
You missed out these bits: 339 have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employees, including 107 who face charges for using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Those who have been sentenced include the New Jersey man who used chemical spray to assault police officers,
Do you mean the same bear spray that the police use every day? I think you do. In the video used to demonstrate the deadly use of bear spray on officer Sicknick, there are several police seen also spraying the crowd with chemical spray. None of them died from it, and they got much heavier blasts. It's not good, but it is not what you were led to believe it was either. Is it good that you swallowed that one hook line and sinker? And what do you think resisting or impeding means? And how many of the crowd do you think were doing that? And why do you think they lump all three together? Has it ever occurred to you that you are being trained?
I do mean that same spray yeah, however it's not illegal for a police officer to use it. It is however a felony for the public to use it on the police so not sure that's the gotcha you think it is. Do I think a majority of people didn't cause trouble? Sure. But even a minority causing trouble, in those numbers can still be dangerous
Excellent. So we can agree that the chemical spray being used is relatively harmless enough for the police to use as a non-lethal method of crowd control. So we have a non-lethal weapon being used by a few people who would not normally be considered a threat to one of the most secure buildings in the United States of America, unless it was inadequatly protected. And an entire crowd that, in normal circumstances, would not be considered a threat to the government of the US, if armed with even the sharpest of sticks. That is my point. The weapons used were those of protesters, not insurrectionists. Up until 6 January 2001, insurrectionists were far more closely associated with bombs, guns and members of the military armed to the teeth running around in tanks. So thank you for assisting with pointing out the absurdity. Generally, peaceful protesters do not get arrested (see BLM rioting after the George Floyd murder), but that was not the case with Jan 6. In fact the great majority have not been charged with any violent crimes, as that article demonstrates. Yes. Now ask yourself why the majority figure is always used to bolster that minority figure. What about the 650 or so people arrested that were literally there without aggravation, and are solely charged with tresspass? No weapons. What do you think of an attempt at insurrection that involved only two guns, being carried by people who refused to use them, despite being involved in the aggravation. And in one case, not used despite being arrested whilst carrying their gun? If he was there for bloody insurrection, why didn't he bloody well insurrect? Because he had no intention of using it? Possibly? There were far more guns carried and used in the BLM and fa riots. Fact is, a fully manned police and staff could very easily have maintained the security of the Capitol. And if the peaceful members of the mob had been told to go back, they would have gone back. Instead they were ushered in. The violent members of the crowd deserve what they get, provided the law is dealt with an even hand. But the idea this was some bloody insurrection planned by Donald Trump is absurd. And the more the Democrats insist it was, the more people argue that 350 odd people were attempting to over throw US democracy with sticks and pepper spray, the more absurd it will appear.
So. To summarise. Rupert Murdoch frequently disagrees with Trump, but allows his news station to broadcast independently of his opinions (that is the logical argument being made) and Vanity Fair f'ing hates Trump.
Still a felony though. Hence why they've been arrested and charged. A protest is not vandalising Indeed. But in every post you're still conveniently ignoring the hundreds that WERE arrested for violent crimes What about them? Whether or not they were peaceful, it's again still a felony to access restricted areas of a government building. I think we're very lucky none of the "protestors" did use their guns. One person using theirs could've set off a huge chain reaction that could've changed the landscape of the event quite drastically. I definitely agree with the first sentence - the security from what i've seen and heard was awfully managed but you do have to wonder how many of the police/security were "sympathetic" to the cause of the protestors. Whether it was a planned insurrection or not, none of us know for sure. However Trump planned and organised the protest that lead to those events. His speeches fired up the crowd. I may be wrong but I believe he has yet to apologise for anything that happened. There are warning signs there and that's worth an investigation for sure.
I think, with what you say above, that we are not too far apart in how we perceive what happened. I am not defending anyone who was violent or took an object into the Capitol in order to use it as a weapon. I think in a few years time you may revisit some of this information and understand, more easily, the point I am making. Why should Trump appologise? He actually said to go peacefully to the Capitol as he closed up his speach. He was using politically charged language the like of which Democrats have been using constantly for, well, ever, I have repeatedly posted a video of Pelosi, and the rest, calling for or condoning violent uprising. No one has suggested they appologise, yet people have died, arguably, as a result of their rhetoric. An appology would immediately, and correctly (in technical terms), be taken as a confession. No one should appologise for something they did not do. The only reason you believe Trump called on them and then wound them up, is because that is what you have been told. The speach took place a mile away from the first breaches, which occurred long before he had finished speaking. That does not sound like a baying mob waiting on Trump's word to commit insurrection. And my point about the peaceful members of the crowd being peaceful, is that the vast majority of those involved, and now being prosecuted, were peaceful protesters. Something like 650 protesters are being prosecuted for tresspass. Exactly none have been charged with insurrection. No Police officers were attacked with deadly force on the day, none of them died, unlike the protrsters. Does it still sound like a bloody insurrection to you? Would you describe it as the worst threat to US democracy since the civil war, as Democrats have been doing in the J6 committee? Your point about sympathisers is excellent. AOC, the darlimg of the Democrats, asked the same question and was rapidly told to STFU by the party lines. Are you not at all suspicious why the J6 committee asked precisely no questions regarding policing on the day? For info. Nancy Pelosi and DC Mayor Bauser were responsible for that policing, and turned down offers of support from the National Guard, when Trump put them forward days before.
My point is not that Trump is great and should be President (though on his anti-establishment credentials and competent achievements as a President, I do consider him my favourite choice). Preference has nothing to do with it. I am just horrified with what the Democrats are doing, with CRT inspired policies, and an incompetent President who cannot, in my opinion, be making his own decisions; based on the number of times the WH walks back his words and the complete absence of transparency. I am not trying to make people like Trump. I am trying to get them to step back and see what the Democrats are doing for what it is. If people want to vote for them, that is there business. The nazis and communists had plenty of popular support. I just don’t want anyone sleep walking into it, or for them to claim later that they were.
Nothing screams "...nothing to see here..." more than a huge, confidential,financial settlement backed up by an NDA that states that "...no admission of wrong-doing...": Judge delays Dominion and Fox News trial amid reports of settlement talks Rupert Murdoch’s channel sued for knowingly or recklessly broadcasting outlandish lies about voting equipment after Trump lost election
Dominion don't have to accept a settlement. And if they won they would get their losses and expenses covered. So whilst you spin a Fox cover up, the rest of us can spin a Dominion cover up. If the case is as cut and dried as you would like us to believe, why would Dominion not want to clear its name completely? I would imagine it is much more in the public's interest, either way, if this case was heard out, and Fox, and Dominion, face the consequences, good or bad, of the court's examination.
That went well: Dominion’s $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox News over 2020 election lies set to begin Trial represents one of the more muscular efforts to hold the powerful news outlet accountable for role in spreading falsehoods It gets better as the word "misunderstanding" is doing a lot of heavy lifting:
I would really appreciate a response to the post I made to this. It almost seemed like a reasonable conversation had broken out, but sadly it now seems to have peetered out half way through.
Excellent. As I said, I think the ins and outs of this will be useful for the public to know, whether it casts Fox in a bad light or not.
It’s just been settled on the cusp of opening arguments in court. https://www.nbcnews.com/media/fox-news-settles-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-rcna80285
I really hope there's some sort of admission of guilt by Fox but I doubt it. Wonder how close the settlement was to the requested $1.6bn...
Hopefully there's a "promulgating the libel" clause that will be broken by one of the usual idiots that will end up with any NDA being ripped up...
I was looking forward to them tugging at Fox's pants and seeing what fell out of their own back pockets.
