c933103 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

That doesn’t justify police killing someone for unlawful entry though.

I thought unlawful entry is something one can response with gunfire in the US?

Well... in reality, it's always Stand My Ground, not Stand Your Ground.

Jetty wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Jetty wrote:

That doesn’t justify police killing someone for unlawful entry though.

Well, if the cop felt threatened, he was justified. You know...like how they are when unarmed black men are pummeled to the ground or seen running away and are still shot...

Kinda seems that Blue Lives Matter, but only when Blacks protest against the police; when it’s Whites, then Blue Lives don’t matter too much.

And you now continue with the same hypocrisy you blame them for.

How about just condemning all unwarranted deaths? People justifying deaths as long it’s the right person who dies really isn’t helpful in a country with 400 million guns and murder rates like the USA.

This is not a police officer just deciding someone may be armed, and use that as an excuse to use deadly force, this is law enforcement confronted with a mob that was encouraged to bring firearms to the party.
This is not a police officer stopping a car and conducting his check of a single person in an unprofessional manner, this is law enforcement being rushed by criminals in overwhelming numbers, with a reasonable expectation they might be armed. With a reasonable expectation some or all are there to kill.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

einsteinboricua wrote:

Well, if the cop felt threatened, he was justified. You know...like how they are when unarmed black men are pummeled to the ground or seen running away and are still shot...

Kinda seems that Blue Lives Matter, but only when Blacks protest against the police; when it’s Whites, then Blue Lives don’t matter too much.

And you now continue with the same hypocrisy you blame them for.

How about just condemning all unwarranted deaths? People justifying deaths as long it’s the right person who dies really isn’t helpful in a country with 400 million guns and murder rates like the USA.

This is not a police officer just deciding someone may be armed, and use that as an excuse to use deadly force, this is law enforcement confronted with a mob that was encouraged to bring firearms to the party.
This is not a police officer stopping a car and conducting his check of a single person in an unprofessional manner, this is law enforcement being rushed by criminals in overwhelming numbers, with a reasonable expectation they might be armed. With a reasonable expectation some or all are there to kill.

And in this situation it is reasonable to expect that one police officer had reason to shoot one person who did nothing that stood out?

Police in civilized societies don’t shoot at mobs because they might have firearms or someone might intend to kill. But I’m starting to wonder if the USA is still a civilized society, with so many people over there radicalizing.

Jetty wrote:

Police in civilized societies don’t shoot at mobs because they might have firearms or someone might intend to kill..

Well.. we are talking about a US police force, so that doesn´t apply. Anyhow, if they had been storming the Pentagon not just would no one expect security to just let them walz in and out, but absolutely expected them to push the selector all the way forward to stop them. And no one could blame them. The capital is one step up from the Pentagon.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk wrote:

They are not terrorists, Trump is. They believe that they are defending democracy based on the lies by Trump, the GOP and right wing media about election fraud.

By your logic, the folks that flew the planes at 9/11 where not terrorists either. Only OBL for inciting them to do so. Besides, weren't the republicans always the party of personal responsibility?

Jetty wrote:

:lol: He’s not my hero.

Well apologies if I lumped you in with them by mistake.

art wrote:

Am I right in thinking that Mr Cruz and associates have dug their own political graves?

If whishes were ...

Even Mr Pence is careful to not annihilate his political prospects.

einsteinboricua wrote:

olle wrote:

If this happens in any other country USA media would have called it a coup. A failed one.

If it happens in USA what is it called?

Patriots proudly exercising their First Amendment rights.

Worse then the protesters, Mr Trump asked Mr Pence to against the US consitution to give him 4 more years.

Mr Trump asked the protesters to march to the Capitol hill and make their voices heard so the Capital hill should make the correct action, which with I consider he meant make Mr Trump president for 4 more years.

When they did go, noone sent the National guard beating down the intrusion that stopped the work in Capital hill making constitutional obligation executed.

This happens in between in countries and most times it is called a coup.

What shall it be called in USA? In my view this was the first try of a coup executed by the sitting president of USA in the history of USA:

This was a coup.

art wrote:

What charges could be faced by the people who entered the Capitol but did no physical damage?

This was textbook sedition:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Boeing757100 wrote:

OA260 wrote:

GW Bush has issued a statement saying these actions are those of a banana Republic.

I guess that is right in terms of being politically unstable, but then again, the economy of US doesn't just rely on the export of one product right?

beyond conflict : what does the US export? grain?
The products that produce profits for US corporations don't pass through the US all that much.

In a way you've seen the template of splitting the population in the Venezoelan election bruhaha. Mr Guaidó , get to work.

petertenthije wrote:

seahawk wrote:

They are not terrorists, Trump is. They believe that they are defending democracy based on the lies by Trump, the GOP and right wing media about election fraud.

By your logic, the folks that flew the planes at 9/11 where not terrorists either. Only OBL for inciting them to do so. Besides, weren't the republicans always the party of personal responsibility?

I have to disagree, as OBL never had any form of legitimation. Trump on the other hand still is the president of the United States and to make matters worse quite a few leading figures of the Republican party have been repeating the same lies. This is not terrorism, this is a coup attempt.

Jetty wrote:

You give too much credit to the party, in big part they just moved to the direction where most voters are, as proven by Trump receiving more votes than anyone before him 4 after years of getting to know him. A president only has a small influence on the people: Trump didn’t create Trumpists, they already existed and had similar beliefs.

No, I wasn't talking about Trump, I was talking about the Republican Party devolving into fascism, and Trump merely rode that already prepared horse.

The GOP on its own and radical reactionaries like Rupert Murdoch have actively created this change. It was not an organic grassroots movement, it was "astroturfed" by specific people who saw it in their own interets, largely driven by aggressive propaganda until eventually conservative voters were in fact swayed their way, and once those voters were already known to be vulnerable to bonkers propaganda ("Tea Party" etc.) Trump grabbed them by that vulnerability and dragged them to his even more insane extreme.

Someone like Trump wouldn’t stand a chance in most civilized democracies. That the US is considered a shining beacon of democracy by some is only due to its size anyway, there are and always have been countries with a better functioning and longer tradition of democracy.

The main reason why Trump could make it in the USA is the crappy electoral system.

In a proper democracy the radicals could and would split off into their own party and then face the voters on their own, possibly leaving the main party looking for coalition partners to make up for the difference, but even as a smaller party they would have a chance to gain seats proportional to the popular vote.

In Germany the hard right has its own party and its own seats in parliaments, but there they have to prove themselves to the public, which they really can't any more than their predecessors: Exposed to the light of day they appeal only to a fringe, and a shrinking one.

Also, government in Germany is formed by a majority in the Bundestag, with the chancellor being elected there (and basing their power on a parliamentary majority). There are top candidates in national elections, but they are only figureheads for their party and usually well-established politicians with a record, not just demagogues basically picked off the street.

It's the ugly and decrepit electoral system in the USA (and in the UK) which forces everything into just two parties, which also leads to much easier infection of those parties by their respective radicals without any realistic mitigation and the direct presidential election creates both opportunities for demagogues and for gridlock. We have seen that "checks and balances" are an illusion in reality.

The US electoral system is a global security risk and is increasingly recognized as such.

Jetty wrote:

That doesn’t justify police killing someone for unlawful entry though.

Come on !
Republicans are constantly bragging about their right to shoot intruders and they're pride to carry a gun to protect themselves against thugs.
Today they were thugs.

This stupid woman who wanted to force entry in front of the secret service should have thought a little more. It's their job to protect the members of congress.

Well this former GOP Congressman (who was never on Trump's team) can see it for what it was.
An attempted coup by a disgraced, loser President, abetted by some other high up in the GOP, of course too his idiot sons and toxic family/friends but most of it seems, elements in the very Police force charged with defending the Capitol.
Basically they have proven beyond any tiny remaining element of doubt some may have, of the deep rot in the US body politic and policing. A symbiotic relationship of racism and criminality, he's right, if any kind of BLM protest had attempted anything remotely near this they would have been shot down in droves. Not that they would as most believe in and indeed are fighting for democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7Sx9ispDD8

Jetty wrote:

Police in civilized societies don’t shoot at mobs because they might have firearms or someone might intend to kill. But I’m starting to wonder if the USA is still a civilized society, with so many people over there radicalizing.

I think there is a lot wrong with policing in the US but one point that is often made to defend their actions applies here : the US is full of guns, unlike any other civilized countries. Some might argue it's a sign it isn't civilized...

sebolino wrote:

Jetty wrote:

That doesn’t justify police killing someone for unlawful entry though.

Come on !
Republicans are constantly bragging about their right to shoot intruders and they're pride to carry a gun to protect themselves against thugs.
Today they were thugs.

This stupid woman who wanted to force entry in front of the secret service should have thought a little more. It's their job to protect the members of congress.

So you can justify it by pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans? Don’t you think that killing someone needs a bit more justification than that or being stupid?

Jetty wrote:

sebolino wrote:

Jetty wrote:

That doesn’t justify police killing someone for unlawful entry though.

Come on !
Republicans are constantly bragging about their right to shoot intruders and they're pride to carry a gun to protect themselves against thugs.
Today they were thugs.

This stupid woman who wanted to force entry in front of the secret service should have thought a little more. It's their job to protect the members of congress.

So you can justify it by pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans? Don’t you think that killing someone needs a bit more justification than that or being stupid?

I don't think that you really understood what I say, and probably you didn't see the images either.
The woman was forcing entry, just in front of armed cops here to protect the congressmen. She was a threat, and the cops on the other side were asking them to stop. Just the bastard filming the whole scene, way behind, was encouraging everybody to rush in where he knew it was totally forbidden to enter.

Breaking and entering is illegal. In the capital as it is for your home. An armed homeowner would have been justified shooting a person breaking into their house, without the need to see a weapon or something else. A violent action like breaking and entering can lead to you being shot and killed.

If people want to argue that the home owner should need to wait and see if the invader is armed or to fall back even if those they are protecting are still there before shooting, you may make that argument. However I can justify shooting a person breaking and entering.

Tugg

About the EC, why can it not be that that the EC votes are awarded automatically to the winner of the popular vote in the state concerned? The EC is just a weighting measure, isn't it, whereby the number of EC votes reflects different populations in different states ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/electio ... 0-55558355

Just looked at the poll at12:40. I know that it is a poll.

Based on 70M voting Republican, that means over 30M people think that this is OK.

The US is not out of the woods by a long way.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/electio ... 0-55558355

Just read the comments at 14:10, particularly the second one.

Some people still haven't caught up.

bennett123 wrote:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2020-55558355

Just looked at the poll at12:40. I know that it is a poll.

Based on 70M voting Republican, that means over 30M people think that this is OK.

The US is not out of the woods by a long way.

I like the "Unaware of story" part.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

I am expect Trump Administration top staff members, to start resigning tomorrow. I think they are going to have to.

Big deal, they were going to lose their jobs on 1/20 anyway. I hope most of the top ones can't even get a job at a McD's or cleaning toilets. They need to be personally ruined for their support of Trump.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Jetty wrote:

I agree it's more serious, but that doesn't make it more violent. Those are two different things.

These terrorists are home grown. These armed terrorists who stormed the capital are from right here in the US of A. That us MUCH more dangerous. Russian and Chinese and Columbian and (insert nation here) agents must plan and work for years or even decades. These domestic terrorists had the aid and comfort of the Republican party and MSM telling them that they are under attack and their leader had the election stolen and lie after lie after lie after lie. And, the added bonus of "we demand guns everywhere" also.

But, yeah, 1814 was worse......

The truth will come out that it was disguised Antifa that led the break in to the Capital.

Shall we review your record of predictions about how this entire process played out? Spoiler: it’s 0-for-all.

luckyone wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The truth will come out that it was disguised Antifa that led the break in to the Capital.

Shall we review your record of predictions about how this entire process played out? Spoiler: it’s 0-for-all.

Just like all the idiots contributing on TGP. They all leap on the latest "It's all part of the plan, just wait and see what happens next... Kraken 5.0 is about to be released" BS story.

If you're unwilling to discuss this issue honestly, please don't participate!

I wonder effects this will have on republicans. I doubt Hawley & Cruz will ever be able to show their faces in public, likely a censure and expulsion. I think the party its self will be shifting back to a more moderate stance.

cpd wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The truth will come out that it was disguised Antifa that led the break in to the Capital.

Is Jake Angeli disguised Antifa then? This is him:

Wait, is it me or is he not wearing any pants?

SYRAVGEEK wrote:

I wonder effects this will have on republicans. I doubt Hawley & Cruz will ever be able to show their faces in public, likely a censure and expulsion. I think the party its self will be shifting back to a more moderate stance.

Neither of them has any conscience, so being flagrant opportunists who have difficulty moderating their impulses, they'll stick around. Ted Cruz rolled over even after Trump made personal attacks on his wife -- I can't imagine why his daughter didn't want him to kiss her.

Personally, in my most frustrated and angriest moments yesterday (I don't think I've ever been so legitimately angry), I entertained the notion of tar-and-feathering.

There are calls to investigate the "failure of the Capital Police" however I don't know what better could have been done. One life lost was too many quite frankly, and I am not sure the idea that a more determined police presence would have deterred the crowd and rioters is correct. I guess a very strong police line and barricades further out may have changed things but this is 20/20 hindsight, no one thought the crowd would do what it did. And more bloodshed, opening fire on the crowd would have been, in my opinion, the worst possible thing to do.

This was bad, very bad, but it was not as bad as it could have been and it was not open warfare between the US government and US citizens, which would have been far worse. Honestly, the "we are out manned so we need to not fight and instead protect and fallback" concept to me seems like the right thing to do.

I don't want an armed force of overwhelming superiority out in front of the Capital. I don't want that for the many protests and gatherings that are done fairly regularly. I want an open and accessible capital with reasonable protection. This was really on the rioters (and Trump's) shoulders more than the police, at least in my opinion.

And yes I have heard stories of police taking selfies with protesters etc. which is wrong and will be dealt with harshly. I am speaking to the overall action of being over run vs using force to resist and fight.

Tugg

Meanwhile, Trump acknowledging that he will be leaving office January 20. Guess we'll have to see if he decides to retract that statement in a few hours. Perhaps the talk of the 25th resonated a bit, as in, "one more wrong step Donald and we're doing it. We have the document drafted."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... s-election

The whole point here is that one leader and also his party told their supporters that if they fail on the democratic way, they can always push through anyway by sheer force, disregarding what is true and disregarding any democratic rules.

That is massively corrosive to any democracy, and that only one half of the USA is still committed to democratic rules and principles while the other half is actively trying to tear down and destroy those is noted with horror from abroad as well.

Tugger wrote:

There are calls to investigate the "failure of the Capital Police" however I don't know what better could have been done. One life lost was too many quite frankly, and I am not sure the idea that a more determined police presence would have deterred the crowd and rioters is correct. I guess a very strong police line and barricades further out may have changed things but this is 20/20 hindsight, no one thought the crowd would do what it did. And more bloodshed, opening fire on the crowd would have been, in my opinion, the worst possible thing to do.

This was bad, very bad, but it was not as bad as it could have been and it was not open warfare between the US government and US citizens, which would have been far worse. Honestly, the "we are out manned so we need to not fight and instead protect and fallback" concept to me seems like the right thing to do.

I don't want an armed force of overwhelming superiority out in front of the Capital. I don't want that for the many protests and gatherings that are done fairly regularly. I want an open and accessible capital with reasonable protection. This was really on the rioters (and Trump's) shoulders more than the police, at least in my opinion.

And yes I have heard stories of police taking selfies with protesters etc. which is wrong and will be dealt with harshly. I am speaking to the overall action of being over run vs using force to resist and fight.

Tugg

They were defienatly not prepared for something like this. I think we'll see some changes in protocol, harsher restrctions and maybe shutting down the tunnels

The reaction by the police force was correct. If they would have been more aggressive it could have been the start of a civil war.

Tugger wrote:

And yes I have heard stories of police taking selfies with protesters etc. which is wrong and will be dealt with harshly. I am speaking to the overall action of being over run vs using force to resist and fight.

Tugg

To be fair it's an oft used, legitimate and effective tactic to defuse tense situations, de-escalate and promote compliance. Odd seeing USPD using it, but elsewhere in the grown up world, respectful and even "enjoyable" interaction goes a long way.

"The whole point here is that one leader and also his party told their supporters that if they fail on the democratic way, they can always push through anyway by sheer force, disregarding what is true and disregarding any democratic rules.

That is massively corrosive to any democracy, and that only one half of the USA is still committed to democratic rules and principles while the other half is actively trying to tear down and destroy those is noted with horror from abroad as well."

True. The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s was a democracy without democratic minds. Forces from the left and right fought against the system.

This is the real cancer.

It is totally ok to oppose Biden.
It is totally ok to believe people should not have Obamacare.
It is totally ok to fight before elections to get Trump reelected.
It is even ok to demand counting ballots revisited after the election, according to the legal provisions in place for the respective states.

But it is NOT OK to pretend you won when all legal proceedings have proven you have lost. Democracy is about fighting to get elected, yet it is also about accepting if you have lost. If you lose - try to win again at the next elections. But WITHIN the constitional means.

seahawk wrote:

The reaction by the police force was correct. If they would have been more aggressive it could have been the start of a civil war.

Just reiterates security is a theater, nothing more. Didn't the authorities knew thousands are coming to the town? What kind of planning went to protect such an important event?

seahawk wrote:

The reaction by the police force was correct. If they would have been more aggressive it could have been the start of a civil war.

We rarely agree, but here we do. I even guess that Trump quietly hoped an escalation would lead to many killed protestors, with more riots happening.


Were there any Anti Trump protestors, by the way? Or did they consider it to be way too dangerous.

TheSonntag wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The reaction by the police force was correct. If they would have been more aggressive it could have been the start of a civil war.

We rarely agree, but here we do. I even guess that Trump quietly hoped an escalation would lead to many killed protestors, with more riots happening.


Were there any Anti Trump protestors, by the way? Or did they consider it to be way too dangerous.

There was no non-trump protesters, just insurgents. Trump isnt smart enough to hope for an escalation that would lead to riots across the country, I do think that the police didn't use enough force (not really good when you open a gate that lets the people you're trying to breach your line of defense).

Hitler was elected by a minority, Mussolini was reinstalled by Hitler after the Italians tried to get rid of him, upwards of 30% of the French were collaborators (substantially fewer as willingly so), big figures in the UK and the US were Nazi supporters for far too long, and Trump was elected by a minority. The events of yesterday storming the Capital building while it was performing one of its most important functions was simply fascist. And most of the voters for Trump were knowingly supporting someone whom they knew, or should have known, was borderline fascist.

"There was no non-trump protesters, just insurgents."

I just meant in the streets of Washington. Was there any counter protestors somewhere? Or did they stay at home due to Covid?

This might be a weird question, but:

After he leaves office (whether by forceful removal, or a transition of power), can he be arrested for inciting violence?
We need him out of influence ASAP. Otherwise, he may fuel up the right wing nutcases even more after Biden becomes president.

acavpics wrote:

This might be a weird question, but:

After he leaves office (whether by forceful removal, or a transition of power), can he be arrested for inciting violence?
We need him out of influence ASAP. Otherwise, he may fuel up the right wing nutcases even more after Biden becomes president.

Pressuming Biden doesn't do what Obama did (Obama pardoned George Bush who was his predcesor fsr). Yes trump could get arrested, after he leaves office. I imagine the same for Cruzing for a bruising & Deck the Hawley (they suck I know).

dtw2hyd wrote:

seahawk wrote:

The reaction by the police force was correct. If they would have been more aggressive it could have been the start of a civil war.

Just reiterates security is a theater, nothing more. Didn't the authorities knew thousands are coming to the town? What kind of planning went to protect such an important event?

The question is to protect from what. The capitol from being stormed by true law abiding patriots or protecting those beautiful Americans from anti-fa and BLM attacks? Does the police have to plan for a president asking his supporters to storm the capitol? Given the circumstances they did a good job, it could have been much worse. They got the people out that they had to protect and largely refrained from using violence. Imagine the crowd gets to Pelosi or the police guns down dozens of the protestors. It would have been really bad.

Trump's main objective is to prove he didn't lose the election, it was stolen, and a considerable amount of people believe him. He will be telling this story like grandpa at dinner table for several years.

The best thing for Biden can do is to ignore him.

There is evidence of this 'restraint' being as much tacit support and aid as anything to do with policing protocols.
As the pics of the disabled, peaceful protestors and their willingness to do Trump's dirty work for that upside down Bible photo op this year, amply demonstrate.