You are not logged in. Please register or login.

mitchejw
 Rep: 128 

Re: Current Events Thread

mitchejw wrote:
monkeychow wrote:
IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

@monkey

4. It may be that the far right groups who staged the assault were motivated by Trumps claims of a phoney election

That thought alone should be enough for alarm bells imo.

But that's where I think we have to be careful as a society...if someone has a political position that isn't violent - and someone else is inspired by that position to engage in violence - is this grounds to silence the moderate speaker?

I think that's something that could be abused.

For example African American leaders often call for improved Civil Rights....now if some crazy person then goes and does some terrorism in the name of African American rights...we can't then start saying that peaceful civil rights campaigners are to blame for it.

To my mind trump has a right to question the mechanics of the 2020 election, just as pelosi has a right to question the mechanics of the 2016 election.

We can't start censoring all political ideas based on what might set off the extremists or we'd have to ban almost everything.

His speech called for voting and cheering on republicans voting for his cause in congress. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

The same thing could happen and undermine any reasonable cause on the left too. I don't want this to set some crazy standard where peaceful people are held accountable for anything a crazy person does in their name.

There's nothing about Trump that's moderate. There's nothing about what he says that's moderate.

slashsfro
 Rep: 50 

Re: Current Events Thread

slashsfro wrote:
monkeychow wrote:

To my mind trump has a right to question the mechanics of the 2020 election, just as pelosi has a right to question the mechanics of the 2016 election.

I'm not against him questioning the mechanics of the election.  But afterwards when his own AG said the election was fair, those election officials re counted 2-3 the vote totals in Georgia and nothing changed, those lower courts kept on rejecting his lawsuits.  I mean shit, you had that one guy basically have to correct all the erroneous claims that Trump made in that infamous phone call.

After ALL THAT, he still claims that the election was stolen.  At that point, there is a difference between him and Pelosi.  That's not really questioning at this point, he's in denial. He was basically pedalling a lie and that point.  He just couldn't stand that he lost.  I mean, he raised his objections, they got proven wrong and instead of admitting it.  He doubled down on it and this riot/insurrection happened because of it.

IRISH OS1R1S
 Rep: 59 

Re: Current Events Thread

IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

This

He doubled down on it and this riot/insurrection happened because of it.

And to add, this didn't start last week. He was planting seeds all over social media. Getting everyone pumped for his big day that backfired spectacularly.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 129 

Re: Current Events Thread

slashsfro wrote:

I skimmed through the speech again and I totally forgot how he labeled the media "the enemy of the people".  I get that people don't trust the media (actual reporters who fact check and have multiple sources) but they do provide a valuable function and service in a government and democracy.  See Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate or just a bunch of other ones that have revealed corruption or wrongdoing by people in power.

Respectfully, that media doesn't exist anymore.  Absolutely individual journalist still exist within every platform, but the false narratives and platforms to outright liars and frauds makes network news tainted.  They allowed the violence to occur this summer and gave it a sympathetic ear and put on Democratic leaders who supported those behind the violence and paid lip service to radical ideas that comprised the radical groups.  Case in point "Defund the Police."  That term wasn't innocuous as was shown by the occupation of city blocks and arson attacks on police stations and federal court houses.  When you support a slogan the rioters are chanting, you don't get to claim you're not inciting the violence.  Every single leader in the Democratic party echoed those statements or the more academic "Reimagining of Policing" in direct response to the "Defund The Police" protests/riots save Biden, who to his credit called it all bullshit. 

Monkey just gave a fucking outstanding synopsis of what really happened the past 4 years.  People on this forum accused Trump of Treason and were convinced he conspired with Putin to win in 2016.  Democratic leaders refused to attend his inauguration, and even Pelosi called him illegitimate and suggested Trump was beholden to Putin in a press conference.  You don't get to ignore that history and all the violence that Antifa types enacted during the inauguration and for years after.  Some nut shot up Congress because of this rhetoric, and none of them scaled it down.  That's not an opinion, that's the absolute objective truth.  The media played to that narrative, they played up the narrative that Trump was evil and immoral. 

The man got 3 middle eastern nations to recognize Israel.  ISIS isn't controlling any territory.  North Korea isn't firing rockets over Japan every week.  That matters, and none of his horseshit with contesting an election negates that those would have been Nobel achievements for any other man, especially after Obama got it in 2009.  The US is in less conflicts and has less foreign troop presence than in 2 generations.  He's not Hitler and he's not a dictator.  That's how the media portrayed him, and they don't get to claim nobility because of a romanticized portrayal as an institution.

harmon420
 Rep: 18 

Re: Current Events Thread

harmon420 wrote:

https://youtu.be/4bIeKj7fZ8U

Is there anyone here on this forum that believes it was antifa, blm, or any related affiliation leading the charge? Is it up for debate what ideology was the primary beligerent of this unprecedented failed coup?

monkeychow
 Rep: 641 

Re: Current Events Thread

monkeychow wrote:
slashsfro wrote:

4)You're using "both sides do it", argument.  People on the left can claim whatever they want to as long as it doesn't end up in violence and chaos etc.  People on the right can claim that Obama isn't a US citizen as long as it doesn't end in the stuff that we saw on Wednesday.  The fact that Democrats were salty about the 2016 election didn't result in a loss of life or chaos.

It's relevant that both sides do it though when assessing how we might change society as a result of this incident.

If you're going to ban one side from social media, it's relevant if the other side say the same type of stuff. If you're going to say that crimes committed by extremists were inspired indirectly, then you have to look at what else indirectly inspires trouble.

If we're going to have unity among the people - we need the same fair standards applied to everyone.

slashsfro wrote:

And this is the part you miss:  he's the President of the USA.  His words have more meaning and value than some other lesser person.  And he is supposed to be above this stuff.

Well that part I agree with. Although I would apply it to the congress as well.

I think part of why we are in this mess in the first place is there's been too many people acting with dishonour for too long.

It's part of why a section of society turned to trump originally - because they had no faith in the existing institutions to address their concerns.

IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

Yes but your coming from a point of view of he didn't incite. Me and it seems the majority disagree with this. So while you say censorship, I would argue its perfectly valid back because his words are causing divide, violence and death,

Well it comes down to how one defines incitement I guess.

He called for a peaceful march. There's nowhere where he says to use violence.

If you define it as instigating a political movement overall then he is the architect of that....but then we're back to a place where anyone who speaks on any philosophy or political view might be banned if some extremist justifies a crime using it.

That's the aspect I find concerning about this - the majority consensus that he incited it even when there doesn't seem to be a part of the speech anyone can point to that actually does.

And that's why I mention the other side too - because if it's a crime to cause division that can lead to violence and death well then a lot of people in politics need to step down. The entire past few years I would argue there's been a lot of purposeful division forming on both sides.

mitchejw wrote:

There's nothing about Trump that's moderate. There's nothing about what he says that's moderate.

For much of his life he seemed to identify as a democrat - so I would consider him to be a left-leaning right wing guy. My understanding is he's generally considered to be left of pence and the evangelical type right wingers as well.

What i'm saying is - it's not reasonable to deplatform people towards the centre of their side just because extremists like them. We wouldn't deplatform Sanders or Biden if someone further left got criminal, so it's not really reasonable to de-platform conservative leaders because far right extremists overtook their causes.

James
 Rep: 644 

Re: Current Events Thread

James wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

What you’re speculating about isn’t known. It’s speculation. You nor the narrative you’re following have provided any evidence of a “plan”. When a law enforcement agency and not a progressive politician looking for attention make that claim and provide evidence, I’ll give it its due consideration.  You’re embracing the latest conspiracy from the same outlets and actors that have deceived you repeatedly.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

How about you demand the same evidence you required of Trump sycophants calling conspiracy.

Did you skim the part of the post where I said we need an investigation right now?

I like how I'm painted as a left wing Q tard.

These Q tards are completely insane....

Pz3B8Nf_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

James
 Rep: 644 

Re: Current Events Thread

James wrote:
harmon420 wrote:

https://youtu.be/4bIeKj7fZ8U

Is there anyone here on this forum that believes it was antifa, blm, or any related affiliation leading the charge? Is it up for debate what ideology was the primary beligerent of this unprecedented failed coup?

I know SG mentioned it a few days ago but no, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to truly believe this is from BLM-Antifa.

The crazies at the Capitol are clearly the Q/right wing conspiracy crowd.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 329 

Re: Current Events Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:
James wrote:
harmon420 wrote:

https://youtu.be/4bIeKj7fZ8U

Is there anyone here on this forum that believes it was antifa, blm, or any related affiliation leading the charge? Is it up for debate what ideology was the primary beligerent of this unprecedented failed coup?

I know SG mentioned it a few days ago but no, I don't think anyone here is dumb enough to truly believe this is from BLM-Antifa.

The crazies at the Capitol are clearly the Q/right wing conspiracy crowd.

These peeps are some real deranged loons... not the kind you would see at a Trump Boat rally for sure.

James
 Rep: 644 

Re: Current Events Thread

James wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
monkeychow wrote:
IRISH OS1R1S wrote:

@monkey



That thought alone should be enough for alarm bells imo.

But that's where I think we have to be careful as a society...if someone has a political position that isn't violent - and someone else is inspired by that position to engage in violence - is this grounds to silence the moderate speaker?

I think that's something that could be abused.

For example African American leaders often call for improved Civil Rights....now if some crazy person then goes and does some terrorism in the name of African American rights...we can't then start saying that peaceful civil rights campaigners are to blame for it.

To my mind trump has a right to question the mechanics of the 2020 election, just as pelosi has a right to question the mechanics of the 2016 election.

We can't start censoring all political ideas based on what might set off the extremists or we'd have to ban almost everything.

His speech called for voting and cheering on republicans voting for his cause in congress. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

The same thing could happen and undermine any reasonable cause on the left too. I don't want this to set some crazy standard where peaceful people are held accountable for anything a crazy person does in their name.

There's nothing about Trump that's moderate. There's nothing about what he says that's moderate.

Maybe not a moderate...but he's not a typical far right winger either. He's more a RINO than anything else. This guy was more a fan of Clinton weddings than Bush weddings.

I thought one of the main reasons he ran on the GOP side is because it's too easy for the DNC to rig its primaries. He had no desire to become Bernie Sanders.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB