Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AntiFirstAmendment domestic terrorists trash Biden campaign office in Portland:

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Georgetime
    replied
    Originally posted by Bing_Oh View Post

    Now, let me be clear, I absolutely deplore what happened at the Capitol and believe that those who participated should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we clearly saw what could just as easily be defined as seditious or insurrectionist acts be the Left in the months leading up to the election that were not prosecuted. That lack of prosecution and the media bias in how these acts were reported brings into question whether there is preference given according to political leanings...and that brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.
    When comparing the Jan 6th disturbance with the highly orchestrated and sustained violent nationwide armed assaults perpetrated by BLM/Pantifa which, despite what ole pudding brain Quid Pro Joe tells us, is MORE than just "an idea", it's not even remotely close. On one hand you have acts of violence that have resulted in multiple deaths and billions of dollars of damage. On the other you have an "insurrection" in which nary a shot was fired by any of the supposed "insurrectionists", and the only death that was clearly a homicide was that of a diminutive an unarmed woman (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-four-capitol/). Brian Sicknick's cause of death is still under wraps, nobody has been charged with his death. The dearth of information is information. If he was murdered, somebody would be charged with it. Clearly he wasn't. If they can't prove it by three months after the fact, they'll never prove it. Despite all the left's hand wringing and sudden faux concern for cops and supposed the sanctity of "the Peoples' house", the "insurrection" narrative has withered and died in the face of facts and the law. There are a few dyed-in-the-wool hard core leftists who are feverishly trying to keep it on life support, but alas 'tis dead as a door nail. You'd have as much luck performing CPR on a mannequin.



    Leave a comment:


  • Bing_Oh
    commented on 's reply
    I can't comprehend how you are twisting the demands you cited into "replacing a legitimate government by violence". Even if they literally got every single thing they wanted, the government would not be replaced at any level. No elected representative would be deposed nor any unelected person installed. Those same demands, made without violence or obstruction of government, would be viewed as just another liberal protest in a liberal city.
    Abolishing the police and the courts, re-trying convicted criminals under a newly-formed system consisting of a "jury of their peers in the community," eliminating duly-passed laws, and altering the electoral system (their words, mind you, not mine) isn't replacing a government?! Seriously?

    ...it just really bothers me to see the propaganda taking root, especially in a community like this one that was so directly targeted and harmed by the attack. It's disappointing.
    Yea, I am too. Especially considering that I've never defended the actions of the rioters at the Capitol (I did, in fact, state that I supported their prosecution to the fullest extent of the law). Yet, there are so many apologists for those who participated in the riots preceding the election that were supported by other political factions and did as much if not more harm to LE in the process.

  • Levithane
    commented on 's reply
    DM206 Just to be objective in Portland those who were rioting, and throwing explosive devices at the court house did call for the mayors removal (even before he won re-election). The same people also consequently lit the inside of the building of his apartment complex on fire.

    No one on here is going to dispute the people who went to the capital on the 6th should receive a form of punishment. You won't see me stick up for them, most of them came off as crazy people to me. The point is that its apparent that there seems to be a lack of wanting to effectively deal with extremism on the opposite side of the political spectrum. My personal opinion is that that's due to the lack of mental fortitude various officials have to deal with the manipulative language games those people play "we're attacking a courthouse for the sake of racial justice along with the people in it".

  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    I can't comprehend how you are twisting the demands you cited into "replacing a legitimate government by violence". Even if they literally got every single thing they wanted, the government would not be replaced at any level. No elected representative would be deposed nor any unelected person installed. Those same demands, made without violence or obstruction of government, would be viewed as just another liberal protest in a liberal city.

    By contrast, the rioters on 1/6 wanted to hang the sitting vice president, called for the Speaker of the House to be brought out to them (I'm sure they just wanted to chat), and their ultimate demand was to stop the legislature from certifying the newly elected president so that their chosen leader could be installed instead. If you can't see the difference it's because you don't want to.

    If people in CHAZ held the East Precinct hostage to demand that the mayor step down, you'd have a point. And if that was one of the demands they made using violence, I'll concede that point. I'm not aware of that being the case.

    Regardless, I'm done with the discussion. Only so many times you can go back and forth on these things. Internet debates rarely change minds...it just really bothers me to see the propaganda taking root, especially in a community like this one that was so directly targeted and harmed by the attack. It's disappointing.

  • Bing_Oh
    commented on 's reply
    Equal criminal conduct requires equal prosecution. As I said, failure to do so brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.

    That you're claiming that what I documented above constitutes demands for "changes in government policy" but what happened at the Capitol doesn't is minimization. BOTH were, arguably, attempts to restrict or overthrown a legitimate standing government. Arguably, the incident in Portland was MORE organized and certainly longer-lived than what happened at the Capitol (for "insurrectionists," those at the Capitol had both the means and opportunity to hold the building if they had wished, but that didn't happen, bringing into question whether it was organized or not, whereas CHAZ/CHOP was clearly so as evidenced by their behavior).

    I'm not making a "false equivalence" here (and it has nothing to do with OK City or 9/11...both of which were, in fact, terrorist attacks without the intent to replace a government...so you can stop strawmanning those). You're claiming that the incidents in Seattle and the incidents at the Capitol were different, so I challenge you to explain HOW. I've shown, using their own demands as evidence, that CHAZ/CHOP were attempting to replace a legitimate government by violence. If you're claiming that's not insurrection/sedition but what happened at the Capitol was, then (to use my old math teacher's favorite phrase) "show your work."

  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    A couple of points. First I'm not interested in debating the incidents in Seattle or Portland. I described them as domestic terrorism (political violence or violence to force changes to government policy), so I don't think you can accuse me of downplaying the seriousness. Sorry if you feel I didn't sufficiently detail their specific demands. Everything you described still falls under a "change to government policy", which is ok to demand if you don't resort to violence to do it. We all have different things we want from government. If you find their demands abhorrent, that's ok. You have the right to that opinion. I am not voicing mine here, just pointing out that having demands is not in and of itself a crime. Using violence to effectuate those demands is. But what kind of crime? Possibly sedition if you take over a government building to do it, but it really more closely aligns to the definition of terrorism. Which, incidentally, is not chargeable because we have no domestic terrorism law. So you end up with other lesser crimes being charged.

    This false equivalence between the lesser crimes of the summer and the Capitol attack is nothing more than a politically motivated narrative. Note that I am not saying that what happened in Seattle or Portland was not bad. But those incidents were different. And the differences matter. That's my point. Oklahoma City was bad. But it also was not an insurrection. So I'm not making an argument from political ideology...right wing extremism is not always insurrection. But in particular, the attack on 1/6 was.

    Now, you seem to be upset that folks on 1/6 are facing harsher prosecution than folks in Seattle or Portland. I have no opinion on that because I think they're apples and oranges. They're different situations and I fully support charging people in Seattle who attacked the police with whatever crime is most appropriate to their actions. If that didn't happen, if they weren't charged, that's something that bears scrutiny completely apart from any discussion of 1/6.

  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    No, these examples are not insurrection or sedition. The use of violence to force a change in government policy or send a political message is terrorism. Words have meanings, and when we use them interchangeably or indiscriminately they lose all meaning. These examples may have common elements but they also have clear differences, just as simple theft is not the same as embezzlement or securities fraud.

    Look at the objective of each act. What would happen if the perpetrators got what they wanted? In Portland or Seattle you would have changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police. In the Capitol incident you would invalidate a democratic election and install an unelected leader. And, possibly, you would have the public execution or murder or elected officials.
    I'm rather concerned to see someone describe the potential outcome of CHOP/CHAZ in Seattle as "changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police." The organizers and participants wanted MUCH more than "changes to public safety." Permit me to link their demands (bear in mind, this is the published demands from the organizers of CHOP/CHAZ, not come media-tweaked story). https://medium.com/@seattleblmanon3/...e-ddaee51d3e47

    Now, if you look through that list, you can see that there's much more than just a "change to public safety" being demanded. Permit me to hit some of the highlights...

    "The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition."
    "We demand reparations for victims of police brutality, in a form to be determined."
    "We demand a retrial of all People in Color currently serving a prison sentence for violent crime, by a jury of their peers in their community."
    "We demand decriminalization of the acts of protest, and amnesty for protestors generally, but specifically those involved in what has been termed “The George Floyd Rebellion” against the terrorist cell that previously occupied this area known as the Seattle Police Department."
    "We demand that the City of Seattle and the State Government release any prisoner currently serving time for a marijuana-related offense and expunge the related conviction."
    "We demand the City of Seattle and State Government release any prisoner currently serving time just for resisting arrest if there are no other related charges, and that those convictions should also be expunged."
    "We demand the abolition of imprisonment, generally speaking, but especially the abolition of both youth prisons and privately-owned, for-profit prisons."
    "We demand in replacement of the current criminal justice system the creation of restorative/transformative accountability programs as a replacement for imprisonment."
    "We demand a decentralized election process to give the citizens of Seattle a greater ability to select candidates for public office such that we are not forced to choose at the poll between equally undesirable options."


    This isn't even all of their "demands."

    Let's look at the scope of the ones I've listed. They want to abolish the police and the court systems (ie, elimination of the Executive and Judicial branches, at least in part). They want to create their own laws, without the input of the Legislature (so they're essentially neutering the Legislative branch). They want to make past legal criminal prosecutions and convictions null and void...in fact, they just want to get rid of incarceration all together. And they want to alter how people are elected. And they were made these demands after seizing an area (including a police department) of Seattle BY FORCE and holding it, establishing their own autonomous "government," and preventing the legal government from enforcing the laws within its borders.

    Now, let me be clear, I absolutely deplore what happened at the Capitol and believe that those who participated should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. However, we clearly saw what could just as easily be defined as seditious or insurrectionist acts be the Left in the months leading up to the election that were not prosecuted. That lack of prosecution and the media bias in how these acts were reported brings into question whether there is preference given according to political leanings...and that brings into question the legitimacy of the entire system.
    Last edited by Bing_Oh; 04-06-2021, 10:37 PM. Reason: Put Portland instead of Seattle...oops.

    Leave a comment:


  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    Amending my answer to add that *some* individuals in the Seattle or Portland examples may fit under the definition of seditious conspiracy, to the extent that their motivation may have been to prevent the execution of federal law or take possession of federal property. Like the Capitol incident, these were heterogeneous groups with people acting from different motivations. There were certainly anarchists who just wanted to watch it all burn.

    Another example to consider is the Malheur occupation several years back. They used force to take over a federal facility. Sedition maybe, but not an insurrection (nothing they did would overthrow the government).

  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    No, these examples are not insurrection or sedition. The use of violence to force a change in government policy or send a political message is terrorism. Words have meanings, and when we use them interchangeably or indiscriminately they lose all meaning. These examples may have common elements but they also have clear differences, just as simple theft is not the same as embezzlement or securities fraud.

    Look at the objective of each act. What would happen if the perpetrators got what they wanted? In Portland or Seattle you would have changes to public safety policy and possibly eliminating the police. In the Capitol incident you would invalidate a democratic election and install an unelected leader. And, possibly, you would have the public execution or murder or elected officials.

    They are not the same thing. And it's not just about the severity of the outcome. Oklahoma City and 9/11 are also not examples of sedition. We have different categories of crime and even different kinds of foreign attacks (ie not all attacks by a foreign entity are acts of war...some are simple crimes or terrorism).
    Last edited by DM206; 04-06-2021, 12:23 AM.

  • Bing_Oh
    replied
    So, for everyone who is actively arguing that the events at the Capitol were an "insurrection," I still wonder what your viewpoint is of the events in places like Portland and Seattle where large crowds have attacked and even occupied government buildings.

    Let's address a specific example...the so-called "CHOP/CHAZ zone" where rioters occupied a large section of Capitol Hill in Seattle, prevented government entry (including emergency services) into the area, set up their own ad hoc government, and burnt and occupied a police station. Was this an insurrection as well? If so, why are people not being prosecuted as such?

    Leave a comment:


  • iconoclaste
    replied
    From Merriam

    UPRISING implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion. quickly put down the uprising

    Seems like exactly what happened

    Leave a comment:


  • iconoclaste
    replied
    Originally posted by CCCSD View Post

    Then that means anytime two or more individuals resist or obstruct police, it’s an insurrection...
    Here's the Merriam definition of insurrection

    : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

    So, by these definitions yes. I mean clearly words also have connotative associations with them as well (some words are more loaded than others), so a definition is just as good as how you interpret that word through your filter, but yes, by definition an attempted revolt against the government by a group (no matter how small) would be considered insurrection. The degree to which the insurrection attempt is well planned and ultimately successful has nothing to do with whether it can be defined as an insurrection in the first place.

    But it would seem to me that thousands of people violently storming our capitol in the midst of our certification of an election would clearly meet the definition of insurrection.

    Leave a comment:


  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    You're taking the Horowitz report out of context I think. With the exception of the one lawyer who was later charged, the IG report did not find that the errors in the FISA applications were material or based on political bias. Horowitz actually found that the issues were not limited to the Trump investigation...there was a sloppiness across various FISA applications that again may not have been material but did not conform to standards. Which is why Wray called it a training issue.

    Regardless, even if you feel that he was being overly protective of the FBI and maybe downplaying the FISA problems, I don't really see how that relates to his assessment or honesty with regards to the Capitol or the threat of domestic extremism. His assessments on those two issues are consistent with findings from DHS and ODNI.

    You can boil his whole career down to your disagreement with him on one issue, but I still find him credible. And I find his statements on these issues to be supported by the available facts and evidence. And by the way, as someone who is distrustful of Trump, I was inclined to be distrustful of his pick to lead the FBI. But from everything I've seen, he was actually a good pick.

    Agree to disagree.
    Last edited by DM206; 04-05-2021, 03:34 PM.

  • DM206
    commented on 's reply
    That would rely on an overly broad interpretation of "uprising". Attempting to obstruct or evade or even assault a government official is not in itself an "uprising" by any reasonable definition.

    Conspiring to use violence to overtake a government building, to prevent the lawful certification of an election, for the purpose of maintaining or installing your preferred government, while indicating in private communication that you are committing an "insurrection" is all significantly different from "resisting police".

    Unless you are obtusely and perhaps politically resistant to viewing a particular event from a lens unfavorable to your predetermined position.

  • SOCAleo
    commented on 's reply
    Well Wray was complicit when it was discovered that several FBI agents lied to FISA judges. In IG Horowitz's report, the FBI agents lied in order to obtain a warrant to surveil the Trump administration over the Russia collusion hoax. The agents signed sworn affidavits attesting to the truth of the "Pee Dossier," knowing it was false or unverifiable (basically no probable cause). If you, or I did that, we'd be done bro. But Wray called it a "training issue" and refused to fire the agents.

    However, when Wray did not do anything about the agents, DOJ AG Barr stepped in and went after them and one just pled guilty.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...sa-court.shtml

    Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence with me.

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5868 users online. 343 members and 5525 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X