Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

Nice... but I made zero references to changes in my viewpoint after last night. I wonder where you came up with the bolded?

Quote:For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

Wait... are we talking about last night's hearing or are we taking this back to the BLM riots? Why?

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

Especially the voice-over of Trump at the end.
An objective observer would note that while there certainly were exceptions (and those people should be prosecuted) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people there can reasonably be described as 'strolling' through the capitol. They didn't break the windows... they didn't assault anyone.

Now, compare that to the BLM protests... where the same (and IMO much worse) pressure and violence took place.... and these same people 'upset' about this call those protests 'mostly peaceful'... and there has been almost NO prosecution of those who did millions in damage.... and some of these same congressmen and of course, the BLM people were all up and about protecting and defending those people, so why is anyone protecting or defending these people 'bad', but those defending the others are not?

MANY protests have damage. MANY protests have some injuries. MANY protests have 'someone' who gets out of control and tries to start a riot. That happened here. Prosecute those who assaulted people or damaged property; I'm perfectly fine with that.... but that needs to happen in EVERY case where protesters get out of control... and NOT just when those being protested or whose lives face 'fear' as a result of it happen to be among the most powerful and political people in the country.

(06-10-2022 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

Especially the voice-over of Trump at the end.
An objective observer would note that while there certainly were exceptions (and those people should be prosecuted) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people there can reasonably be described as 'strolling' through the capitol. They didn't break the windows... they didn't assault anyone.

Now, compare that to the BLM protests... where the same (and IMO much worse) pressure and violence took place.... and these same people 'upset' about this call those protests 'mostly peaceful'... and there has been almost NO prosecution of those who did millions in damage.... and some of these same congressmen and of course, the BLM people were all up and about protecting and defending those people, so why is anyone protecting or defending these people 'bad', but those defending the others are not?

MANY protests have damage. MANY protests have some injuries. MANY protests have 'someone' who gets out of control and tries to start a riot. That happened here. Prosecute those who assaulted people or damaged property; I'm perfectly fine with that.... but that needs to happen in EVERY case where protesters get out of control... and NOT just when those being protested or whose lives face 'fear' as a result of it happen to be among the most powerful and political people in the country.

Of course it's political theater. Some moments were completely cringe when it came to over-the-top theater. I just wondered if anybody's perspective had changed based on what was presented.

Certainly there appears to have been some level of organization between far-right groups with plans to invade the Capitol.

I found it interesting that Bill Barr states that he has not seen any evidence to suggest that there was voting fraud that may have had a significant effect on the election. What does GoodOwl know that Bill Barr doesn't!?!?

Like was the case for Schiff's Russia, Russia, Russia hearings, we were promised new, hard evidence. Still waiting on both accounts.

Kabuki theater at best.

So, to answer your question, no.

(06-10-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

Especially the voice-over of Trump at the end.
An objective observer would note that while there certainly were exceptions (and those people should be prosecuted) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people there can reasonably be described as 'strolling' through the capitol. They didn't break the windows... they didn't assault anyone.

Now, compare that to the BLM protests... where the same (and IMO much worse) pressure and violence took place.... and these same people 'upset' about this call those protests 'mostly peaceful'... and there has been almost NO prosecution of those who did millions in damage.... and some of these same congressmen and of course, the BLM people were all up and about protecting and defending those people, so why is anyone protecting or defending these people 'bad', but those defending the others are not?

MANY protests have damage. MANY protests have some injuries. MANY protests have 'someone' who gets out of control and tries to start a riot. That happened here. Prosecute those who assaulted people or damaged property; I'm perfectly fine with that.... but that needs to happen in EVERY case where protesters get out of control... and NOT just when those being protested or whose lives face 'fear' as a result of it happen to be among the most powerful and political people in the country.

Of course it's political theater. Some moments were completely cringe when it came to over-the-top theater. I just wondered if anybody's perspective had changed based on what was presented.

Certainly there appears to have been some level of organization between far-right groups with plans to invade the Capitol.

I found it interesting that Bill Barr states that he has not seen any evidence to suggest that there was voting fraud that may have had a significant effect on the election. What does GoodOwl know that Bill Barr doesn't!?!?

I'm interested in what evidence they seem to have on coordination of the Proud Boys. Specifically identifying that there was a "stack" leads me to believe that there is going to be evidence presented of coordination ahead of time besides something like "we're showing up to protest." If there isn't, it would seem odd to me to highlight the stack multiple times.

I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

I'm interested in seeing what evidence they have that has not yet been made public.

(06-10-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

Especially the voice-over of Trump at the end.
An objective observer would note that while there certainly were exceptions (and those people should be prosecuted) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people there can reasonably be described as 'strolling' through the capitol. They didn't break the windows... they didn't assault anyone.

Now, compare that to the BLM protests... where the same (and IMO much worse) pressure and violence took place.... and these same people 'upset' about this call those protests 'mostly peaceful'... and there has been almost NO prosecution of those who did millions in damage.... and some of these same congressmen and of course, the BLM people were all up and about protecting and defending those people, so why is anyone protecting or defending these people 'bad', but those defending the others are not?

MANY protests have damage. MANY protests have some injuries. MANY protests have 'someone' who gets out of control and tries to start a riot. That happened here. Prosecute those who assaulted people or damaged property; I'm perfectly fine with that.... but that needs to happen in EVERY case where protesters get out of control... and NOT just when those being protested or whose lives face 'fear' as a result of it happen to be among the most powerful and political people in the country.

Of course it's political theater. Some moments were completely cringe when it came to over-the-top theater. I just wondered if anybody's perspective had changed based on what was presented.

Certainly there appears to have been some level of organization between far-right groups with plans to invade the Capitol.

I found it interesting that Bill Barr states that he has not seen any evidence to suggest that there was voting fraud that may have had a significant effect on the election. What does GoodOwl know that Bill Barr doesn't!?!?

Why would such an 'over-the-top theatre' change anyone's mind? The editing is intentional... as you note. To be perfectly frank, the moment someone starts 'spinning' their story, I start to question them. If someone or something is really bad, you shouldn't have to add voice-overs or selectively edit. It was also hard to tell whom was whom. I saw one short scene that looked like lots of armed 'looters', and then it turns out those were the police. Someone could easily make the same mistake I initially did and think this was even worse than it was (which was bad enough)

What bothers me the most is that some of these same people were defending (verbally, legislatively and financially) protesters who were causing damage and injury etc in numerous other states, but the moment it comes to THEIR door, they suddenly want to 'crack down' on it... and of course, gain from it.

PArt of the reason 1/6 happened is because BLM happened. If you don't get upset when people 'aggressively' protest others (and lots of the left didn't) then you can't be upset when it comes to YOUR door. I'm not saying they thought that... but I am saying that the protests and the reaction by the left to a lot of it certainly didn't discourage them... That doesn't excuse what these people did, and CERTAINLY doesn't excuse anything else any of them may have done... i.e. the numerous references in the video to 'proud boys' and their charges and offenses... I mean, simply saying they are 'proud boys' sets a stage for lots of people... no trial needed... but I'm sure some of those guys are REALLY bad people... maybe all of them, IDK.

What does Bill Barr or GO have to do with any of this?? Though I'd note that the bar for voter fraud is pretty high... its like finding cockroaches. Experience says that if you see 10, there are 10,000... does that have a correlation here?? Some think so. No, there is not evidence that the thousands of votes necessary in numerous jurisdictions to impact the election took place... but part of the reason for that is that it is/was so difficult (especially in 2020) to find.. like roaches. So is Barr saying that its not possible that there was enough fraud to overturn the election??

(06-10-2022 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

Nice... but I made zero references to changes in my viewpoint after last night. I wonder where you came up with the bolded?

You seem excited.

Quote:

Quote:For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

Wait... are we talking about last night's hearing or are we taking this back to the BLM riots? Why?

because both were protests that got out of hand. yet they are regarded and treated as vastly different situations by your team.

(06-10-2022 10:36 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:29 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

It is totally political. it is aimed at rescuing some of the mid-term elections and trying to keep Trump off the ballot in 24. I am OK with the latter.

Especially the voice-over of Trump at the end.
An objective observer would note that while there certainly were exceptions (and those people should be prosecuted) The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the people there can reasonably be described as 'strolling' through the capitol. They didn't break the windows... they didn't assault anyone.

Now, compare that to the BLM protests... where the same (and IMO much worse) pressure and violence took place.... and these same people 'upset' about this call those protests 'mostly peaceful'... and there has been almost NO prosecution of those who did millions in damage.... and some of these same congressmen and of course, the BLM people were all up and about protecting and defending those people, so why is anyone protecting or defending these people 'bad', but those defending the others are not?

MANY protests have damage. MANY protests have some injuries. MANY protests have 'someone' who gets out of control and tries to start a riot. That happened here. Prosecute those who assaulted people or damaged property; I'm perfectly fine with that.... but that needs to happen in EVERY case where protesters get out of control... and NOT just when those being protested or whose lives face 'fear' as a result of it happen to be among the most powerful and political people in the country.

Of course it's political theater. Some moments were completely cringe when it came to over-the-top theater. I just wondered if anybody's perspective had changed based on what was presented.

Certainly there appears to have been some level of organization between far-right groups with plans to invade the Capitol.

I found it interesting that Bill Barr states that he has not seen any evidence to suggest that there was voting fraud that may have had a significant effect on the election. What does GoodOwl know that Bill Barr doesn't!?!?

I tend to trust Barr. But Barr's position is not that no cheating happened, but that it was not enough to materially change the result.

GO tends to point out the cheating, and make the assumption is that it was enough.

I think maybe it was enough to swing Georgia. Don't know about other states.

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone. Another government. Which group was attempting to burn Federal Buildings?

If Jan. 6 was a coup attempt, it was easily the weakest attempt since the neanderthals. And Trump is not incompetent.

Is there any thinking person who does not believe the result/verdict was written in rough draft before the committee was assembled?

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

And did.

(06-10-2022 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there any thinking person who does not believe the result/verdict was written in rough draft before the committee was assembled?

What is the result that the committee has produced/found?

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

C'mon OO, there's no goal post moving here and you know it. January 6 is being described as a coup attempt because it was trying to overturn the result of an election - that was made abundantly clear in the hearing last night. So overturning a federal election is inherently part of discussing the argument that January 6 was an attempted coup. If you think I'm moving goal posts, please give me a better explanation as to why you think it is.

Speaking to the Autonomous Zone - someone wanting to replace the US government is different than someone trying to replace the US government. Can you walk me through how the Autonomous Zone tried to replace the US government? What concrete steps were taken to do so? And then, how does that scale compare to what the committee is saying took place on Jan 6?

My comment above relates to that - the committee made it clear that they have evidence that will explain how the Trump admin had a plan that they tried to execute that would have replaced the US government (i.e., incoming Biden administration).

As I see it, what you're arguing is akin to comparing someone saying they wish the president was dead is the same as Lee Harvey assassinating JFK. Just miles and miles and miles apart. It also ignores that the Autonomous Zone was not a hallmark of all (or even most) BLM protests, so it comes a bit out of left field when trying to compare the BLM riots to the Capitol riots.

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

A coup attempt?? Seriously?? I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. Had they quite literally occupied the entire campus, exactly what would they have done to 'take over' the government?

What you likely mean is that I don't buy the partisan BS story of a 'coup' they want to tell here, and you don't like that so you think I'm missing something by comparison. I'm sorry Lad, you're just entirely wrong about what I think once again.

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there any thinking person who does not believe the result/verdict was written in rough draft before the committee was assembled?

What is the result that the committee has produced/found?

Get real.

(06-10-2022 12:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:42 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 12:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think OO and Ham's focus on the protestors, and the subsequent comparison to BLM riots, misses the biggest point that the opening statements make - the committee seems to have found evidence to describe January 6 as a coup attempt. BLM riots have never been described by anyone as an attempted coup.

But they should have been, since they established an Autonomous Zone.

They should have been categorized as a coup to overturn a federal election because they establish an Autonomous Zone?

You'll have to walk me through the logic of how that act could be construed as being an attempted coup.

Who said a &%$@ thing about an election? Moving the goalposts again?

They wanted to replace the US government with their own.

C'mon OO, there's no goal post moving here and you know it. January 6 is being described as a coup attempt because it was trying to overturn the result of an election - that was made abundantly clear in the hearing last night. So overturning a federal election is inherently part of discussing the argument that January 6 was an attempted coup. If you think I'm moving goal posts, please give me a better explanation as to why you think it is.

Speaking to the Autonomous Zone - someone wanting to replace the US government is different than someone trying to replace the US government. Can you walk me through how the Autonomous Zone tried to replace the US government? What concrete steps were taken to do so? And then, how does that scale compare to what the committee is saying took place on Jan 6?

My comment above relates to that - the committee made it clear that they have evidence that will explain how the Trump admin had a plan that they tried to execute that would have replaced the US government (i.e., incoming Biden administration).

As I see it, what you're arguing is akin to comparing someone saying they wish the president was dead is the same as Lee Harvey assassinating JFK. Just miles and miles and miles apart. It also ignores that the Autonomous Zone was not a hallmark of all (or even most) BLM protests, so it comes a bit out of left field when trying to compare the BLM riots to the Capitol riots.

Actually I was comparing THAT BLM riot to THAT Jan. 6 riot, one to one. You have moved the goalpost for me to defend comparing to all the others.

When you declare an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the instituted government is not recognized, you have replaced that instituted government with a different one.

(06-10-2022 12:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2022 09:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Obviously the video clips were presented in a fashion to best make the committee's case. That said, I'm wondering if last night changed anybody's mind as to the seriousness of what went down on Jan 6?

There has been some suggestion from some here that Jan 6 was mostly a chill walkaround and perhaps the occasional grabbing of a souvenir paperweight. I'm curious to hear if perspectives have shifted or not.

Nope. The prosecution case is always vastly different from the defense case, and in this hearing, there is no defense allowed to present a case. Totally one-sided and slanted.

In this made-for-Prime-time Busby Berkeley extravaganza the producers are geared toward exciting their base, and it appears they have made some headway with you. Go, Blue, beat Red.

Nice... but I made zero references to changes in my viewpoint after last night. I wonder where you came up with the bolded?

You seem excited.

LOL... what? Nah, dude. Perhaps you are projecting.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:For a planned insurrection, there were damn few, if any, guns, and damn little, if any, organization. Did Ashli Babbitt have a gun? where is the team sent to take over communications, and the one sent to take the Joint Chiefs into custody?

There was a lot of strolling through the Capitol and a lot of selfies taken and Facebook posts. In fact, aren't those the things being used to find and convict the rioters? The pictures they themselves posted of them sitting at Pelosi's desk, and so forth?

Of course, they should not have entered the Capitol at all. Just useless, about as useful as the BLM guys breaking into the Wal-Greens. At least the BLM guys did establish an Autonomous Zone where the authority of the USA was unrecognized by them. Isn't that a coup?

Wait... are we talking about last night's hearing or are we taking this back to the BLM riots? Why?

because both were protests that got out of hand. yet t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶r̶e̶g̶a̶r̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶t̶r̶e̶a̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶v̶a̶s̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶d̶i̶f̶f̶e̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶r̶ ̶t̶e̶a̶m̶.̶ both sides minimize the actions of those on their size and emphasize the actions of those on the opposing side.

FIFY, my friend.