(02-28-2023 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding your zen foray into weather and the subtle vagaries therein, and zen metaphysics of language --- the gist of the accepted definition of 'riot' is (are, actually):

Quote:a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

(Oxford)

Quote:a violent public disorder

(Merriam)

Quote:an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest:

(Cambridge)

Quote:a violent protest by a crowd of people

(MacMillan)

OK, Tanq, last time I will respond to this line of questioning.

Every term in all those definitions is subject to a range of interpretation. Protest, violence, even crowd. Or have you never heard that three's a crowd.

Yet you allow for no range of interpretation.

Quote:Doesnt seem that hard overall.

Please do tell how 1/6 was not a 'riot'? (third time asked).

Have I said it was not a riot? Or is that just something you have assumed I am saying? I have been castigated for saying it lesser than the BLM riots. It is a riot in the same way that thunderstorms and hurricanes are "weather events".

Quote:And I am still looking for why the proceedings of Congress on 1/6 were 'unlawful'. The issue I brought forth was a 'lawful transition' of power. Your foray was into the possibility that the rioters thought it unlawful -- not how it was unlawful.

Your predicate for your excuse is that the proceeding on Jan 6 was not lawful, based upon your foray into the feelings of the crowd and the previous evasive comment and question from my question of 'why is it not unlawful'.

Lawful proceedings can and have been used in ways to reach illegitimate results. I think that was what the protesters thought would happen - that once votes were certified the stolen election would become a fait accompli.

Yes I give some deference to what the protesters thought, just as I would give deference to a person who shot a person he thought was a burglar but who was not.

Quote:To better address your attempt at justification -- here is this. I rob a bank. I feel that the monies in there rightfully belong to me. The problem with that is that my 'rationale' for taking that money is not a justification for the very plain, very explicit, and very well known violation of the law I just performed.

Very poor example.

(02-28-2023 01:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding your zen foray into weather and the subtle vagaries therein, and zen metaphysics of language --- the gist of the accepted definition of 'riot' is (are, actually):

Quote:a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

(Oxford)

Quote:a violent public disorder

(Merriam)

Quote:an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest:

(Cambridge)

Quote:a violent protest by a crowd of people

(MacMillan)

OK, Tanq, last time I will respond to this line of questioning.

Every term in all those definitions is subject to a range of interpretation. Protest, violence, even crowd. Or have you never heard that three's a crowd.

Yet you allow for no range of interpretation.

I agree there is a range of interpretation.

Kind of hard to ignore there was a crowd, a protest, and significant violence. No matter where that range is placed.

The issue here is that from most rational points of view, there really is no debate on 'crowd', 'protest', 'disturbance', and 'violence' being present.

Except for those that might choose to avoid the very common ideas embedded within each of those words.

Much like the avoidance of the right in general to recognize that a riot occurred, and the riot was aimed at stopping the process of the transfer of power.

It is amazing how much most in the right go to to avoid that.

Quote:

Quote:Doesnt seem that hard overall.

Please do tell how 1/6 was not a 'riot'? (third time asked).

Have I said it was not a riot? Or is that just something you have assumed I am saying? I have been castigated for saying it lesser than the BLM riots. It is a riot in the same way that thunderstorms and hurricanes are "weather events".

You *have* gone to great lengths to marginalize it. Pretty great lengths.

Quote:

Quote:And I am still looking for why the proceedings of Congress on 1/6 were 'unlawful'. The issue I brought forth was a 'lawful transition' of power. Your foray was into the possibility that the rioters thought it unlawful -- not how it was unlawful.

Your predicate for your excuse is that the proceeding on Jan 6 was not lawful, based upon your foray into the feelings of the crowd and the previous evasive comment and question from my question of 'why is it not unlawful'.

Lawful proceedings can and have been used in ways to reach illegitimate results. I think that was what the protesters thought would happen - that once votes were certified the stolen election would become a fait accompli.

*The* stolen election. You mean *the* stolen election that has practically zero substantive objective evidence behind it, right?

I find it kind of hard to give substantiation to an object of belief that has literally close to zero backing.

Might as well blame their riot on 'Santa Claus told us to.' Or 'ancient space aliens said we should.' Not such a great justification for a riot to stop the outcome, and each of the above three has about as much objective evidence in support.

I find that fallback to trying to question the issue of 'lawful' based on that somewhat specious.

Quote:Yes I give some deference to what the protesters thought, just as I would give deference to a person who shot a person he thought was a burglar but who was not.

You mean more like 'shot a guy who he thought was a burglar, but there was zero objective evidence of that person even having been in the house'. That is the more apropos comparison.

I wouldnt give that shooter much deference mind you.

----------

I shot the guy.

Why?

I thought he was a burglar.

Why did you think that?

Orange haired Donny told me that. Orange haired Donny told me the dude was in my house -- Orange haired Donny called the cops, but the cops cleared the dude. The cops couldnt find any evidence the dude was even in the house. Orange haired Donny kept telling me the dude robbed my house, and he would help me clear it up. So I shot the dude.

Did they ever find any of your stuff with the guy? Was he a burglar?

Donny says so. But they hadnt found any of the stuff that was stolen with him, or in his house. No proof to back up him being the person that burgled my house. But its still okay that I shot him. Orange haired Donny said there was a robbery.

---------------

Does that sound something that you should give great amount of deference to?

Tanq

You repeatedly speak about how far the right goes in trying to avoid talking about the purpose being to stop the lawful transfer or power.... but you repeatedly avoid talking about the purpose of MOST protests to be to stop something lawful. That's why people protest. Because these things are being allowed by law.

The next question is whether or not something SHOULD be lawful, and opinions can vary. Obviously those who are protesting don't believe what is happening is or should be lawful... but it is. If the law were stopping it from happening, they wouldn't need to protest.

I mostly ignore it because I don't understand the point you seem to think is very important. That these people are 'wrong' that it was not/should not have been legal? Protesters have the right to be wrong.... because 'wrong' is mostly decided by a majority and is not a simple black/white question.

As to your hypothetical about Orange Haired Donny....

While certainly the most prominent figure pushing the agenda, he wasn't the only one. These weren't drones hired by him, but people with their own rights to assemble and to seek redress and protest something that may be allowed under the law, but they don't think it should be. Obstructing the process is a tactic that has been utilized by protesters since perhaps the first protest. I ran urgent cares in San Francisco and on numerous occassions (4 i recall in just over a year) protests by people seeking a change to healthcare employment practices there blocked access to my centers. They weren't even protesting MY employment practices... and certainly not ones where my practices were in conflict with LOCAL (not state) law....and ABSOLUTELY quite literally, liberals protesting liberals over lawful acts.... Absolutely no political PARTY games being played.

There were occassions where scuffles broke out... and amusingly people sought care at my centers... but I digress...

Your hypothetical is of something that is undeniably illegal... and where the facts have been adjudicated to your satisfaction... that nothing was stolen... despite the person's belief that something was missing. That isn't/wasn't the case here. While yes, a decision had been made that the events weren't ILLEGAL... that is the precise reason for the protest.

A better, but equally misleading because of the significance involved would be where a 24yr old roofied your 15 yr old daughter and had sex with her... but because the age of consent in your state was 15 and he kept her away for long enough for the drug to completely leave her system, she couldn't prove that she was incapacitated and the grand jury declined to indict. You got mad and protested the ruling... trying to stop the DA from closing the case and then got out of control and 'caused violence'. You lose under the law, but if you honestly believe the guy roofied your daughter, what WOULDN"T you do?? I'd castrate the effer... much less key his car and throw rocks through his windows

(02-28-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 01:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding your zen foray into weather and the subtle vagaries therein, and zen metaphysics of language --- the gist of the accepted definition of 'riot' is (are, actually):

Quote:a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

(Oxford)

Quote:a violent public disorder

(Merriam)

Quote:an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest:

(Cambridge)

Quote:a violent protest by a crowd of people

(MacMillan)

OK, Tanq, last time I will respond to this line of questioning.

Every term in all those definitions is subject to a range of interpretation. Protest, violence, even crowd. Or have you never heard that three's a crowd.

Yet you allow for no range of interpretation.

I agree there is a range of interpretation.

Kind of hard to ignore there was a crowd, a protest, and significant violence. No matter where that range is placed.

The issue here is that from most rational points of view, there really is no debate on 'crowd', 'protest', 'disturbance', and 'violence' being present.

Except for those that might choose to avoid the very common ideas embedded within each of those words.

Much like the avoidance of the right in general to recognize that a riot occurred, and the riot was aimed at stopping the process of the transfer of power.

It is amazing how much most in the right go to to avoid that.

Quote:

Quote:Doesnt seem that hard overall.

Please do tell how 1/6 was not a 'riot'? (third time asked).

Have I said it was not a riot? Or is that just something you have assumed I am saying? I have been castigated for saying it lesser than the BLM riots. It is a riot in the same way that thunderstorms and hurricanes are "weather events".

You *have* gone to great lengths to marginalize it. Pretty great lengths.

Quote:

Quote:And I am still looking for why the proceedings of Congress on 1/6 were 'unlawful'. The issue I brought forth was a 'lawful transition' of power. Your foray was into the possibility that the rioters thought it unlawful -- not how it was unlawful.

Your predicate for your excuse is that the proceeding on Jan 6 was not lawful, based upon your foray into the feelings of the crowd and the previous evasive comment and question from my question of 'why is it not unlawful'.

Lawful proceedings can and have been used in ways to reach illegitimate results. I think that was what the protesters thought would happen - that once votes were certified the stolen election would become a fait accompli.

*The* stolen election. You mean *the* stolen election that has practically zero substantive objective evidence behind it, right?

I find it kind of hard to give substantiation to an object of belief that has literally close to zero backing.

Might as well blame their riot on 'Santa Claus told us to.' Or 'ancient space aliens said we should.' Not such a great justification for a riot to stop the outcome, and each of the above three has about as much objective evidence in support.

I find that fallback to trying to question the issue of 'lawful' based on that somewhat specious.

Quote:Yes I give some deference to what the protesters thought, just as I would give deference to a person who shot a person he thought was a burglar but who was not.

You mean more like 'shot a guy who he thought was a burglar, but there was zero objective evidence of that person even having been in the house'. That is the more apropos comparison.

I wouldnt give that shooter much deference mind you.

----------

I shot the guy.

Why?

I thought he was a burglar.

Why did you think that?

Orange haired Donny told me that. Orange haired Donny told me the dude was in my house -- Orange haired Donny called the cops, but the cops cleared the dude. The cops couldnt find any evidence the dude was even in the house. Orange haired Donny kept telling me the dude robbed my house, and he would help me clear it up. So I shot the dude.

Did they ever find any of your stuff with the guy? Was he a burglar?

Donny says so. But they hadnt found any of the stuff that was stolen with him, or in his house. No proof to back up him being the person that burgled my house. But its still okay that I shot him. Orange haired Donny said there was a robbery.

---------------

Does that sound something that you should give great amount of deference to?

You are just getting ridiculous now. Orange haired Donny? I didn't bring that up. I was thinking more of the guy who shot his 15 year son who was sneaking back into the house after having sneaked out. I see a difference there from just a generic "a man shooting a child". But with your way of defining things, they are the same.

I compare these relatively mild happenings to the relatively unmild happenings on the West coast. I don't have to minimize anything - an objective comparison displays the differences. Speeding is speeding, says Tanq. I see a difference between 75 in a 70 and 120 in a school zone. That is not to say I minimize the 75 in a 70.

I try to explain these to you time and time again without rancor or insult. I get back Santa Claus and space aliens and orange haired Donny. Very much a mental image of you waving your arms wildly.

I realize you very much a defender of the Constitution. i respect that. I submit that many of the 1-6 rioters thought they were too.

Some of our most revered persons are, under your definitions, criminals who interfered with the lawful process of the legitimate government. George Washington. Thomas Jefferson. The defenders of the Alamo.

I guess we will not see eye to eye.

(02-28-2023 05:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Your hypothetical is of something that is undeniably illegal... and where the facts have been adjudicated to your satisfaction... that nothing was stolen... despite the person's belief that something was missing. That isn't/wasn't the case here. While yes, a decision had been made that the events weren't ILLEGAL... that is the precise reason for the protest.

The point wasnt the inherent illegality. The point was that there was an allegation of illegality with *zero* substantive evidence that backs it up.

At that time, OO makes the point he would give deference to shooting someone as a robber. If the person was in my house, there would be at least *some* objective evidence that he is a burglar.

My point is that OOs comment about giving deference inherently contains with it some objective evidence to allow one to think otherwise.

There is *zero* objective evidence of 'the election was stolen.' Zero. Zilch, Nada. None. There wasnt then, nor is there any even today.

So no, I think the example of giving deference to someone shooting someone as a burglar is fairly inapt. Instead, I changed OOs own story of allowing deference to show the amount of evidence available, and whether that idea of deference to the rioters is actually proper.

Quote:A better, but equally misleading because of the significance involved would be where a 24yr old roofied your 15 yr old daughter and had sex with her... but because the age of consent in your state was 15 and he kept her away for long enough for the drug to completely leave her system, she couldn't prove that she was incapacitated and the grand jury declined to indict. You got mad and protested the ruling... trying to stop the DA from closing the case and then got out of control and 'caused violence'. You lose under the law, but if you honestly believe the guy roofied your daughter, what WOULDN"T you do?? I'd castrate the effer... much less key his car and throw rocks through his windows

Again, you miss the point. You state categorically that a 24 roofied a 15 year old. That is you assume there is an amount of credible evidence available to determine that.

Here is the more apt sequence:

Orange haired Donnie *told* you that 24 yr old roofied her. And presented no more evidence than Orange haired Donnie's word on the matter. And the investigation into the matter turned up *zero* evidence that 24 yr old was involved.

That is, the *only* evidence you have for your reaction is the word of Orange haired Donnie. Oh, and Orange haired Donnie is a *known* inveterate liar. Across the board.

No, I would give you zero deference for your retaliation under those circumstances.

(02-28-2023 06:08 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 01:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 11:00 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Notwithstanding your zen foray into weather and the subtle vagaries therein, and zen metaphysics of language --- the gist of the accepted definition of 'riot' is (are, actually):

Quote:a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

(Oxford)

Quote:a violent public disorder

(Merriam)

Quote:an occasion when a large number of people behave in a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled way in public, often as a protest:

(Cambridge)

Quote:a violent protest by a crowd of people

(MacMillan)

OK, Tanq, last time I will respond to this line of questioning.

Every term in all those definitions is subject to a range of interpretation. Protest, violence, even crowd. Or have you never heard that three's a crowd.

Yet you allow for no range of interpretation.

I agree there is a range of interpretation.

Kind of hard to ignore there was a crowd, a protest, and significant violence. No matter where that range is placed.

The issue here is that from most rational points of view, there really is no debate on 'crowd', 'protest', 'disturbance', and 'violence' being present.

Except for those that might choose to avoid the very common ideas embedded within each of those words.

Much like the avoidance of the right in general to recognize that a riot occurred, and the riot was aimed at stopping the process of the transfer of power.

It is amazing how much most in the right go to to avoid that.

Quote:

Quote:Doesnt seem that hard overall.

Please do tell how 1/6 was not a 'riot'? (third time asked).

Have I said it was not a riot? Or is that just something you have assumed I am saying? I have been castigated for saying it lesser than the BLM riots. It is a riot in the same way that thunderstorms and hurricanes are "weather events".

You *have* gone to great lengths to marginalize it. Pretty great lengths.

Quote:

Quote:And I am still looking for why the proceedings of Congress on 1/6 were 'unlawful'. The issue I brought forth was a 'lawful transition' of power. Your foray was into the possibility that the rioters thought it unlawful -- not how it was unlawful.

Your predicate for your excuse is that the proceeding on Jan 6 was not lawful, based upon your foray into the feelings of the crowd and the previous evasive comment and question from my question of 'why is it not unlawful'.

Lawful proceedings can and have been used in ways to reach illegitimate results. I think that was what the protesters thought would happen - that once votes were certified the stolen election would become a fait accompli.

*The* stolen election. You mean *the* stolen election that has practically zero substantive objective evidence behind it, right?

I find it kind of hard to give substantiation to an object of belief that has literally close to zero backing.

Might as well blame their riot on 'Santa Claus told us to.' Or 'ancient space aliens said we should.' Not such a great justification for a riot to stop the outcome, and each of the above three has about as much objective evidence in support.

I find that fallback to trying to question the issue of 'lawful' based on that somewhat specious.

Quote:Yes I give some deference to what the protesters thought, just as I would give deference to a person who shot a person he thought was a burglar but who was not.

You mean more like 'shot a guy who he thought was a burglar, but there was zero objective evidence of that person even having been in the house'. That is the more apropos comparison.

I wouldnt give that shooter much deference mind you.

----------

I shot the guy.

Why?

I thought he was a burglar.

Why did you think that?

Orange haired Donny told me that. Orange haired Donny told me the dude was in my house -- Orange haired Donny called the cops, but the cops cleared the dude. The cops couldnt find any evidence the dude was even in the house. Orange haired Donny kept telling me the dude robbed my house, and he would help me clear it up. So I shot the dude.

Did they ever find any of your stuff with the guy? Was he a burglar?

Donny says so. But they hadnt found any of the stuff that was stolen with him, or in his house. No proof to back up him being the person that burgled my house. But its still okay that I shot him. Orange haired Donny said there was a robbery.

---------------

Does that sound something that you should give great amount of deference to?

You are just getting ridiculous now.

I am injecting the exact level of evidence into the situation. Zero evidence. No, I would give little to no deference to someone who thinks he shot a burglar, when he has zero evidence of that. That is the point.

Quote:I was thinking more of the guy who shot his 15 year son who was sneaking back into the house after having sneaked out. I see a difference there from just a generic "a man shooting a child". But with your way of defining things, they are the same.

The guy shooting someone climbing into their house window has *some* amount of objective evidence to surmise them being a robber.

There is *no* objective evidence that I have seen brought forth to believe the 2020 election was stolen. Neither then, nor, more importantly, even now. Maybe I missed a law case or so that actually came forth with credible evidence. If I did miss one that was more than a mishmash of hither and yonder that got soundly dismissed, send them around -- I think a decent number got attorneys disbarred based on the paucity of facts and evidence issue.

So no, I dont give people who get whipped up into an emotional frenzy with zero evidence behind that emotional frenzy much deference at all. Let alone deference to commit a violent act.

Quote:I compare these relatively mild happenings to the relatively unmild happenings on the West coast. I don't have to minimize anything - an objective comparison displays the differences. Speeding is speeding, says Tanq. I see a difference between 75 in a 70 and 120 in a school zone. That is not to say I minimize the 75 in a 70.

I see the summer riots as more destructive, longer lasting, and more violent in total. The aim of the riots (the racial angst) doesnt add or subtract to the seriousness.

I see the riot of 1/6 as less destructive, shorter in scope, and less violent. But the aim was to impede the mechanism of transition of power. Based on shrill lies from a fing cesspool of a President. So while the destruction, the scope, and the violence of 1/6 are all lesser in scope, the aim of the riot chills me to the bone.

By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country.

That portion, the aim, and the causation, tend to 'add' a bit to the import of the 1/6 riot. I guess you dont give the import that I do about that background of the riot *at* the Capitol. *For* a political purpose of actively impeding a transition of power. And, *without* a fing iota of proof behind the charge that instigated them. I see problems in not just all of the three being wound up and related to the riot of 1/6, but I think that any one of them adds to the seriousness of 1/6. All even without mentioning the actions undertaken by that President to stem the violence on his behalf (I guess, if one can use that word 'action' for the process of throwing ketchup at the wall) .....

In short -- summer 2020 wins on the counts of larger, greater in breadth, greater in number, greater in smashed Walgreens, more blocked cars, greater in damage, greater in looting, and greater in the sum of the violence. All in all, probably more selfies as well, since that seems to rear its head up in descriptions of the 'level of an act' for some reason.

1/6 makes up ground and wins with a greater---- 'gravitas factor' (for lack of a more precise word or phrase) --- in the issues intertwined with what instigated the riot of 1/6.

But, hey, its a free country. You can freely choose to count, or for that matter freely choose to discount, whatever factors your heart desires.

The time, place, and aim of 1/6 chill me to the bone. Kind of creepily 3rd world-ish. Maybe thats not a bad thing. I hear motorvating around in tuktuks is pretty fun.

(02-28-2023 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the summer riots as more destructive, longer lasting, and more violent in total.

Me too. This is what what I have been saying.

Quote: The aim of the riots (the racial angst) doesnt add or subtract to the seriousness.

I would think, based on your other statements, it would, since there is no evidence that police departments coast to coast are out to kill black people.

Quote:I see the riot of 1/6 as less destructive, shorter in scope, and less violent.

much less destructive, much less violent, and about 1/100 of the duration. Again, what I have been saying all along.

Quote:But the aim was to impede the mechanism of transition of power. Based on shrill lies from a fing cesspool of a President. So while the destruction, the scope, and the violence of 1/6 are all lesser in scope, the aim of the riot chills me to the bone.

I don't think people came from all over the country to impede the transition of power with violence, and I think the short-lived violence (compared to the BLM riots) and milder violence (same comparison) would have been doomed to failure - a very bad plan if in fact it was the plan. I think the leaders of our country could make a better plan than that if the goal was to overthrow a duly elected government. The very uselessness of the riot is some of the best evidence that it was not a planned coup.

OTOH, I also think there was a guiding force behind the BLM riots. The goal was to help the Democrats win in the elections. As soon as the polls showed it was beginning to hurt, they immediately and mysteriously stopped. 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs are a very poor way to run a coup.

Quote:By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country.

No. when/where was this?

Quote:That portion, the aim, and the causation, tend to 'add' a bit to the import of the 1/6 riot. I guess you dont give the import that I do about that background of the riot *at* the Capitol. *For* a political purpose of actively impeding a transition of power. And, *without* a fing iota of proof behind the charge that instigated them.

After what we have recently been through with the Covid origin, going from NO PROOF to where we are now, I am skeptical of this as a basis. Also the Russian/Trump conspiracy, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter Biden/Biden family crisis, the 50 intelligence experts, yada, yada, yada.

Quote:In short -- summer 2020 wins on the counts of larger, greater in breadth, greater in number, greater in smashed Walgreens, more blocked cars, greater in damage, greater in looting, and greater in the sum of the violence. All in all, probably more selfies as well, since that seems to rear its head up in descriptions of the 'level of an act' for some reason.

More arson, more burning police cars, more everything. Except selfies. I have yet to see a selfie from the West Coast riots.

Selfies just point out the difference in attitude. The 1-6 guys were more touristy in their actions. Lots of the prosecutions are based on FB photos posted by the rioters themselves. Who has time in a planned coup to post selfies? Were the usurpers in the coup you were in posing for pictures and posting on FB as they went?

Quote:1/6 makes up ground and wins with a greater---- 'gravitas factor' (for lack of a more precise word or phrase) --- in the issues intertwined with what instigated the riot of 1/6.

I think we talking more apples and oranges.

Quote:But, hey, its a free country. You can freely choose to count, or for that matter freely choose to discount, whatever factors your heart desires.

Right back at ya, amigo. I have, as you have, and now we are here.

Quote:The time, place, and aim of 1/6 chill me to the bone. Kind of creepily 3rd world-ish. Maybe thats not a bad thing. I hear motorvating around in tuktuks is pretty fun.

I was dismayed and disappointed that this protest got out of hand. I knew the Dems would use it for propaganda purposes, and they have, to the hilt. My personal feeling, expressed here several times, was that I didn't know if the election was stolen, but if it was, it was a fait accompli.

But I saw no evidence of a planned coup, and see none now. Where was the cannon to blast open the doors? Where was the plan to occupy the Capitol? Where was the detachment assigned to take over the media outlets? All I saw was a bunch of zealots with no plan at all. They came, they took selfies and souvenirs, then went back to their hotel rooms and went home the next day on the tickets they had previously purchased.

Quote:Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene @RepMTG

On behalf of President Trump and all of his voters in Georgia, here’s a {present}.

This is what I had to say to Gabe Sterling today.

{VIDEO}

6:08 PM · Feb 28, 2023

(02-28-2023 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The point wasnt the inherent illegality. The point was that there was an allegation of illegality with *zero* substantive evidence that backs it up.

Since when is that a requirement for a protest??

Quote:My point is that OOs comment about giving deference inherently contains with it some objective evidence to allow one to think otherwise.

So his example was poor as well... so what?

Quote:

Quote:A better, but equally misleading because of the significance involved would be where a 24yr old roofied your 15 yr old daughter and had sex with her... but because the age of consent in your state was 15 and he kept her away for long enough for the drug to completely leave her system, she couldn't prove that she was incapacitated and the grand jury declined to indict. You got mad and protested the ruling... trying to stop the DA from closing the case and then got out of control and 'caused violence'. You lose under the law, but if you honestly believe the guy roofied your daughter, what WOULDN"T you do?? I'd castrate the effer... much less key his car and throw rocks through his windows

Again, you miss the point. You state categorically that a 24 roofied a 15 year old. That is you assume there is an amount of credible evidence available to determine that.

No I didn't. I mentioned no evidence whatsoever.... other than 'they had sex'.... and then just a belief as to how, since she can provide no evidence.

Quote:Orange haired Donnie *told* you that 24 yr old roofied her. And presented no more evidence than Orange haired Donnie's word on the matter. And the investigation into the matter turned up *zero* evidence that 24 yr old was involved.

That is, the *only* evidence you have for your reaction is the word of Orange haired Donnie. Oh, and Orange haired Donnie is a *known* inveterate liar. Across the board.

No, I would give you zero deference for your retaliation under those circumstances.

Well, you've left off the most important evidence... that they actually had sex... in my hypo this isn't in question.... and she obviously SAYS she doesn't remember it (she could be lying, but that is the evidence) and then he 'kept' her for long enough so that a test wouldn't be conclusive.

You're right that maybe she's lying... but many people don't hold Trump in the contempt that many others do... which is why I chose a hypothetical daughter. A 15yr old lying to their parents about having sex with a much older man wouldn't be that unusual... neither would a parent believing that daughter.

You keep saying ZERO evidence... but that isn't really the case. Some people claim there is evidence of aliens and ghosts and the stripper with a heart of gold.... or a good 'cheap' tequila. Just because we personally don't 'buy' the evidence doesn't mean that everyone has to or that it doesn't exist.... or that someone can't protest the 'injustice' that didn't actually happen

TONS of cases get thrown out because of insufficient evidence... but just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Now I'd like to address your 'whatabout' comment.

Whatabout comments are intended to deflect. That isn't remotely what I'm doing. What I'm saying is that if one side is cheating and winning as a result, and nobody does anything about it... then is it really cheating?? or are you just holding YOUR side to a higher standard?? If the umpire is giving the other guy a strike 2 inches off the outside of the plate and isn't giving you the inside 'black'.... YOU can keep throwing the pitch there and complaining about not getting the call.... because the party of Reagan wouldn't stoop to taking the outside pitch as a strike.... but you'd be much better served giving up the inside pitch and throwing the ball 2 inches off the outside.

(03-01-2023 12:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The point wasnt the inherent illegality. The point was that there was an allegation of illegality with *zero* substantive evidence that backs it up.

Since when is that a requirement for a protest??

I didnt say it was a requirement for a protest. The issue is under what circumstances one should give deference to commit a violent act.

Committing a violent act, at the behest of a third party, and with no credible objective evidence for 'aggrievance' -- kind of ranks at the bottom tier of issues I would jump into the fray to promote deference for.

That is the point that I am trying to make.

Quote:My point is that OOs comment about giving deference inherently contains with it some objective evidence to allow one to think otherwise.

So his example was poor as well... so what? [/quote]

Evidence of an 'aggrievance' (to me at least) changes the deference standard. I agree that the dude who sees someone climbing into the window should be shown a certain amount of deference for a violent act he commits against what he thinks (with some reasonableness, and with some evidence) is a burglar.

In that regard, someone who commits an act of violence with zero to little evidence of an 'aggrievance' really deserves relatively little deference. Just my opinion, of course.

Quote:

Quote:[quote]Orange haired Donnie *told* you that 24 yr old roofied her. And presented no more evidence than Orange haired Donnie's word on the matter. And the investigation into the matter turned up *zero* evidence that 24 yr old was involved.

That is, the *only* evidence you have for your reaction is the word of Orange haired Donnie. Oh, and Orange haired Donnie is a *known* inveterate liar. Across the board.

No, I would give you zero deference for your retaliation under those circumstances.

Well, you've left off the most important evidence... that they actually had sex... in my hypo this isn't in question.... and she obviously SAYS she doesn't remember it (she could be lying, but that is the evidence) and then he 'kept' her for long enough so that a test wouldn't be conclusive.

The takeaway is that in the case of 1/6, the entire gamut of evidence was such evidence that it got attorneys literally disbarred for presenting the case.

Kind of hard to beat that bar of little to no evidence.

So again, no --- I am not going to give the rioters the 'out', that is giving them very little, perhaps no, deference. Maybe rioting on the word of an inveterate liar who presents as close to zero evidence in the court cases running up to the matter is sufficient for some to come to the conclusion that this is deserving enough to *not* call the violent acts by the mob a 'riot'.

It isnt in my book. I dont think there are very many people when faced with a similar lack of evidence that would stretch themselves so elastically to provide deference for any other mob violence in that lack of evidence. But that seems to be the tack de jure --- hey they thought they were aggrieved by the Big Cheat. Lets give them an out and avoid calling it what it was.

Quote:You keep saying ZERO evidence... but that isn't really the case. Some people claim there is evidence of aliens and ghosts and the stripper with a heart of gold.... or a good 'cheap' tequila.

What do you call the mountain of evidence provided? I think zero is as good a place to start than any....

And yes, your comparison with the level of evidence to aliens is spot on. I think I used that example earlier. I was called 'hand waving' for that. Are you 'hand waving' when you type that above?

Quote:Just because we personally don't 'buy' the evidence doesn't mean that everyone has to or that it doesn't exist.... or that someone can't protest the 'injustice' that didn't actually happen

It is possible that a huge, giant cheat happened -- of course. In the same realm it is possible that JFK was shot by J. Edgar Hoover's long lost twin brother that no one knew existed.

Ps that a level of evidence (more metaphysical philosophizing about the nature of 'truth' than anything else) you want to adjudge a violent act, or stretch that level of 'truth' to deference to that act? all in all, I think I'd prefer to *not* jump on that bandwagon, thank you very much.

The singular *fact* about the Great Cheat is that real solid *facts* that support it ar few and far between -- much like credible evidence of Nessie at Loch Ness.

Look, I would prefer if Trump had won. But in the objective world, that doesnt seem likely (to give it a boost). And facts supporting the Great Cheat seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth. Based on that level of evidence -- again, no. Im not going to run about and state that I think we should give 1/6 a pass on the people being aggrieved. No more and no less than I think we should hop on the reparations bandwagon for those people being aggrieved.

(03-01-2023 12:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 12:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 06:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The point wasnt the inherent illegality. The point was that there was an allegation of illegality with *zero* substantive evidence that backs it up.

Since when is that a requirement for a protest??

I didnt say it was a requirement for a protest. The issue is under what circumstances one should give deference to commit a violent act.

Committing a violent act, at the behest of a third party, and with no credible objective evidence for 'aggrievance' -- kind of ranks at the bottom tier of issues I would jump into the fray to promote deference for.

That is the point that I am trying to make.

All I'm saying is that while it certainly applies here... It applies to vastly more situtions than you're allowing... calling them 'whatabout'.

Protests by their very nature risk violence... by and/or against the protestors. Recognizing this doesn't condone it

Quote:Evidence of an 'aggrievance' (to me at least) changes the deference standard. I agree that the dude who sees someone climbing into the window should be shown a certain amount of deference for a violent act he commits against what he thinks (with some reasonableness, and with some evidence) is a burglar.

In that regard, someone who commits an act of violence with zero to little evidence of an 'aggrievance' really deserves relatively little deference. Just my opinion, of course.

And its not unreasonable... so by what evidence are we giving deference to people who, in the name of protesting police brutality.. destroy private cars, loot Walgreens or assault random people? How are those things even related?

More to the specific point though... lots of things especially surrounding elections are all but impossible to prove, especially in a short period... and especially if the 'leadership' is complicit. Many election rules were changed at the last minute as a result of COVID... and while these changes may have been within the law... I doubt if many people considered a global pandemic and national lockdown when they decided that such rules were reasonable.... so again, they are protesting a 'legal' action because they don't think it should have been legal... in fact, had they sued prior to the election, they would probably have been thrown out until there was an actual person who suffered damages. Of course I'm making that up... I don't know... but if I think that... plenty of others think it as well.

Quote:The takeaway is that in the case of 1/6, the entire gamut of evidence was such evidence that it got attorneys literally disbarred for presenting the case.

Kind of hard to beat that bar of little to no evidence.

Well, this sort of goes to the issue I just mentioned. People feel wronged by the way rules were changed for the 2020 election... but the rules were legal... even if they were wrong... like so many other things that have been protested... so you can't win a legal case by arguing that.... so I guess they found some people willing to try and argue something else.

Quote:So again, no --- I am not going to give the rioters the 'out', that is giving them very little, perhaps no, deference. Maybe rioting on the word of an inveterate liar who presents as close to zero evidence in the court cases running up to the matter is sufficient for some to come to the conclusion that this is deserving enough to *not* call the violent acts by the mob a 'riot'.

It isnt in my book. I dont think there are very many people when faced with a similar lack of evidence that would stretch themselves so elastically to provide deference for any other mob violence in that lack of evidence. But that seems to be the tack de jure --- hey they thought they were aggrieved by the Big Cheat. Lets give them an out and avoid calling it what it was.

Had they not lost the election, they wouldn't have rioted.

Quote:

Quote:You keep saying ZERO evidence... but that isn't really the case. Some people claim there is evidence of aliens and ghosts and the stripper with a heart of gold.... or a good 'cheap' tequila.

What do you call the mountain of evidence provided? I think zero is as good a place to start than any....

And yes, your comparison with the level of evidence to aliens is spot on. I think I used that example earlier. I was called 'hand waving' for that. Are you 'hand waving' when you type that above?

I don't know what you mean by that because I didn't see the comment and context...
but plenty of people believe in their soul that they have been visited by aliens. They would have the right to protest a 'there are no aliens' event... and there is always a possibility that violence could result, depending on the stakes.

Quote:It is possible that a huge, giant cheat happened -- of course. In the same realm it is possible that JFK was shot by J. Edgar Hoover's long lost twin brother that no one knew existed.

Aaahh.. see?? It wouldn't have taken a huge, giant cheat. It would have only taken a modest, strategic one.... so perhaps not his long lost twin brother that nobody knew existed, but merely someone who generally supported his policies. Arguing in the absurd isn't appropriate here. There is PLENTY of reason to think that many rules that were changed in response to covid, while legal, were unfair and resulted in a different turn out and thus result than had covid not occurred.

but again, that's not really a reasonable LEGAL argument... but protests are not court cases.

Quote:Ps that a level of evidence (more metaphysical philosophizing about the nature of 'truth' than anything else) you want to adjudge a violent act, or stretch that level of 'truth' to deference to that act? all in all, I think I'd prefer to *not* jump on that bandwagon, thank you very much.

I'm not adjudicating the violence. That's between you and OO. I just think that once you start getting into the idea of 'fairness', the doors get opened to all sorts of things

Quote:The singular *fact* about the Great Cheat is that real solid *facts* that support it ar few and far between -- much like credible evidence of Nessie at Loch Ness.

Look, I would prefer if Trump had won. But in the objective world, that doesnt seem likely (to give it a boost). And facts supporting the Great Cheat seem to be as scarce as hen's teeth. Based on that level of evidence -- again, no. Im not going to run about and state that I think we should give 1/6 a pass on that.

Never suggested giving them a pass... simply suggested that in violence at a protest is MOST cases is violence at a protest.... and should be treated equally.

I really don't have much of a problem with those who pushed and maybe got a tiny bit out of hand with the summer protests of police... I can even somewhat understand someone getting caught up and breaking the windows of a police car. They pay a price for sure... but IMO, not a huge one... maybe even just a slap on the wrist, sort of a temporary insanity... but the moment they shoot someone or break into a private business, they are no longer acting in protest... they're just destroying things. That's why I note that the protesters of 1/6 (best I know) damaged only the property of the people they were protesting... so I see them like the ones damaging a police car.

To the guys threatening Pence, they are less culpable than the guys who shot cops (because one is a threat and the other is an action)... but as I'm sure the guys who shot cops would present their 'state of mind' based on the injustice they perceived as a mitigating factor, I would allow the same thing for these people.

I believe in equality... I'm just not seeing it... and I perceive that you're holding 'our' side to a higher standard than the other side is being held.... for reasons that mostly reflect your personal values (which is a good and admirable thing) and position regarding the law and also Trump. Many/Most people aren't in your position.

Stray thought tangentially related to the “Big Cheat” as Tanq calls it - is it really that hard to believe that Trump lost? Large swaths of the country were legitimately just sick of him. I know
“Mean to reporters” has become kind of a meme around here, but likability is important when you want to win a big election. Trump’s base LOVES him, but I think he does turn off a lot of middle of the road conservatives/inflames lots of lefties who otherwise wouldn’t vote.

Might be the first time I can recall that an “Anybody but X” candidate actually won. And it’s why Trump will likely win in 2024 - the country has had a 4-year break from Trump over-saturation, so folks won’t feel like they have to flock to the polls to get him off their TVs for a minute.

(03-01-2023 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote: The aim of the riots (the racial angst) doesnt add or subtract to the seriousness.

I would think, based on your other statements, it would, since there is no evidence that police departments coast to coast are out to kill black people.

The aim of the summer riots was specifically to protest. The aim of 1/6 (for a substantial amount of persons) was to *stop* the process of the certification.

Kind of a major difference there in the end goals for me.

Protest all you want.

if you want to implicate and intermediate yourself in the very unique US peaceful transition of power, move to fing Argentina or move to fing Zimbabwe and do it there.

Now we have 1/6 under our belts and one side very steadfastly trying to give it a pass, maybe that isnt a unique thing anymore. As I said, a move to a 3rd world feel by the right in that aspect.

Quote:

Quote:I see the riot of 1/6 as less destructive, shorter in scope, and less violent.

much less destructive, much less violent, and about 1/100 of the duration. Again, what I have been saying all along.

Yes, you steadfastly try to germinate thought about the metaphysics of size, scope, and intensity in your process to minimize the other aspects of 1/6. I am aware of that.

Quote:

Quote:But the aim was to impede the mechanism of transition of power. Based on shrill lies from a fing cesspool of a President. So while the destruction, the scope, and the violence of 1/6 are all lesser in scope, the aim of the riot chills me to the bone.

I don't think people came from all over the country to impede the transition of power with violence,

Did you follow the Proud Boys trial? Apparently not. Your sentence above with that in mind is abjectly false.

Quote:and I think the short-lived violence (compared to the BLM riots) and milder violence (same comparison) would have been doomed to failure - a very bad plan if in fact it was the plan.

Yes, the only metrics if a riot are duration and scope of violence. You also make your position very clear on that.

Quote: I think the leaders of our country could make a better plan than that if the goal was to overthrow a duly elected government. The very uselessness of the riot is some of the best evidence that it was not a planned coup.

Did I use the word 'coup'? 'Insurrection'? I dont think I did. Please tell me where I did.

I have said the melee on 1/6 (is melee a proper word for you that you wont try minimize? How many people and how much violence are proper for a melee for you?) occurred and the very explicit goal of many there was the 'trying to stop' the transfer of power. I dont give a flying fk if it was a 'bad' plan, nor do I think that if they 'could [have] ma[d]e a better plan' makes any dent on the thrust there.

I dont care if it was a fantastic plan to alter or thwart the lawful process, or a piss poor plan to do so -- or even 'no plan at all' in order to accomplish that.

I guess we need to look at the efficacy and the robustness of the plan to forestall or impede the process to determine if a riot was in fact a riot to forestall or impede the process? Sounds like a helluva Accenture project mind you....

Quote:OTOH, I also think there was a guiding force behind the BLM riots. The goal was to help the Democrats win in the elections. As soon as the polls showed it was beginning to hurt, they immediately and mysteriously stopped. 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs are a very poor way to run a coup.

Again, I dont think I have used the word coup. Very specifically. Yet that is your focus on my comments.

And, I dont think that an attempt to thwart (forestall, impede, etc etc) the transition of power need be judged as 'how well' or 'how poor' they are planned or executed. In the end, each is still an attempt to thwart, forestall, or impede the transition of power. In the end, the only issue is whether there was attempt to (thwart, forestall, impede), not whether Arthur Andersen Business Consulting gave its thumbs up on that plan to (thwart, forestall, impede)

Quote:

Quote:By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country.

No. when/where was this?

Argentina. Late 80's. Maybe it wasnt a coup. It failed. Maybe it was poorly planned and shouldnt be considered a coup.

Kind of wild though. Armed folks storming government buildings. Calling for the deaths of the leaders. Wailing about a cheated election.

As an American witnessing the stuff literally live in the street below the hotel, I thought 'thank my fing stars this pile of horsesh-t doesnt happen in my home country.'

Quote:

Quote:That portion, the aim, and the causation, tend to 'add' a bit to the import of the 1/6 riot. I guess you dont give the import that I do about that background of the riot *at* the Capitol. *For* a political purpose of actively impeding a transition of power. And, *without* a fing iota of proof behind the charge that instigated them.

After what we have recently been through with the Covid origin, going from NO PROOF to where we are now, I am skeptical of this as a basis. Also the Russian/Trump conspiracy, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter Biden/Biden family crisis, the 50 intelligence experts, yada, yada, yada.

>>>> (scratchy) BEEEEEPPP <<<<< This is a test of the Whadabout Broadcasting and Blame Network. In the event of real comment on the present topic, instructions would be provided by your local authorities. This is the end of the test of the Whadabout Broadcasting and Blame Network
>>>> (scratchy) BEEEEEPPP <<<<<

Glad to know we are still neck deep in excusing the zero evidence of a cheated election that culminated in a riot based on a whole slew of other issues.

I guess that will be part and parcel of anything now that involves actual necessity of evidence. Excuse it with a giant whadabout. Arent we lucky.

Quote:Lots of the prosecutions are based on FB photos posted by the rioters themselves.

Many prosecutions for the lower trespassing charges were based on those pictures. Note the term "for the lower trespassing charges" as the delimiter.

The prosecutions for interference required a higher and more thorough standard of proof.

And those for seditious conspiracy even more.

What is the number or ratio limit of 'innocents around' that defines a riot as not a riot in your mind? Or are you still fixated on conjoining the mishmash of trespassing, interference, and seditious conspiracy all together as seems to have happened quite frequently in discussions on this?

I see you are way more than happy to limit the levels of 'participation' in the events of 1/6, yet strangely do not even attempt to do that with your wide arching blanket charge of 'the riot (assuming for everyone there)' for those in 2020.

Quote:Were the usurpers in the coup you were in posing for pictures and posting on FB as they went?

Serious lack of cell phones in Buenos Aires in the late 80s. I guess there is no 'selfie ratio' defense open to them. Que lastima.

And I dont think Buenos Aires plotters would have passed the McKinsey bar to get approval for their plan. I guess that would work in their favor.

Quote:I was dismayed and disappointed that this protest got out of hand. I knew the Dems would use it for propaganda purposes, and they have, to the hilt.

Id blame the Trumpistas. They were abjectly deficient in doing that 'for their man'. Id call it more of a self fk than anything else. Glad they didnt plan it, then it would be labeled worse.

And, when you try to fk with the transition of power, that *is* a juicy target to hit. But now we know to take lots of selfies to explain it away. And make sure you dont have your Kinsey approved plan to help build your aggrieved and purely innocent status a tad better.

(03-01-2023 02:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The aim of the summer riots was specifically to protest the racism inherent in all police departments that makes them feel it is OK to kill black people because of their race.'' I see no evidence this is true or factual. Was a lack of evidence one of your major themes?

Quote:Yes, you steadfastly try to germinate thought about the metaphysics of size, scope, and intensity in your process to minimize the other aspects of 1/6.

yes, I compare size, scope, and intensity. Also frequency. The rest of your statement is based on YOUR perception of what I am doing, NOT on my intentions. Don't put your words in my mouth.

Quote:Did you follow the Proud Boys trial? Apparently not. Your sentence above with that in mind is abjectly false.

No, I did not. I have little interest or confidence in political trials with foregone conclusions. I didn't follow the 1-6 commission either.

But whatever the PB intentions, they were only a small part of the crowd. Probably about the same part of the crowd as the ones in the BLM riots who wanted a riot for political purposes. Given, it only takes one person taking an action (throwing a brick, kicking in a door) to ignite a crowd that did not have those intentions.

Quote:Yes, the only metrics if a riot are duration and scope of violence. You also make your position very clear on that.

The word "only" is your word, not mine. have you been taking lessons from Lad?

Quote:
[quote]
Did I use the word 'coup'? 'Insurrection'? I dont think I did. Please tell me where I did.

Yes, in this passage:

By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country

Quote:I have said the melee on 1/6 (is melee a proper word for you that you wont try minimize?

I think melee is an excellent word for what I saw, much better than insurrection or coup.

(03-01-2023 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the summer riots as more destructive, longer lasting, and more violent in total.

Me too. This is what what I have been saying.

Quote: The aim of the riots (the racial angst) doesnt add or subtract to the seriousness.

I would think, based on your other statements, it would, since there is no evidence that police departments coast to coast are out to kill black people.

Quote:I see the riot of 1/6 as less destructive, shorter in scope, and less violent.

much less destructive, much less violent, and about 1/100 of the duration. Again, what I have been saying all along.

Quote:But the aim was to impede the mechanism of transition of power. Based on shrill lies from a fing cesspool of a President. So while the destruction, the scope, and the violence of 1/6 are all lesser in scope, the aim of the riot chills me to the bone.

I don't think people came from all over the country to impede the transition of power with violence, and I think the short-lived violence (compared to the BLM riots) and milder violence (same comparison) would have been doomed to failure - a very bad plan if in fact it was the plan. I think the leaders of our country could make a better plan than that if the goal was to overthrow a duly elected government. The very uselessness of the riot is some of the best evidence that it was not a planned coup.

OTOH, I also think there was a guiding force behind the BLM riots. The goal was to help the Democrats win in the elections. As soon as the polls showed it was beginning to hurt, they immediately and mysteriously stopped. 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs are a very poor way to run a coup.

Quote:By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country.

No. when/where was this?

Quote:That portion, the aim, and the causation, tend to 'add' a bit to the import of the 1/6 riot. I guess you dont give the import that I do about that background of the riot *at* the Capitol. *For* a political purpose of actively impeding a transition of power. And, *without* a fing iota of proof behind the charge that instigated them.

After what we have recently been through with the Covid origin, going from NO PROOF to where we are now, I am skeptical of this as a basis. Also the Russian/Trump conspiracy, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter Biden/Biden family crisis, the 50 intelligence experts, yada, yada, yada.

Quote:In short -- summer 2020 wins on the counts of larger, greater in breadth, greater in number, greater in smashed Walgreens, more blocked cars, greater in damage, greater in looting, and greater in the sum of the violence. All in all, probably more selfies as well, since that seems to rear its head up in descriptions of the 'level of an act' for some reason.

More arson, more burning police cars, more everything. Except selfies. I have yet to see a selfie from the West Coast riots.

Selfies just point out the difference in attitude. The 1-6 guys were more touristy in their actions. Lots of the prosecutions are based on FB photos posted by the rioters themselves. Who has time in a planned coup to post selfies? Were the usurpers in the coup you were in posing for pictures and posting on FB as they went?

Quote:1/6 makes up ground and wins with a greater---- 'gravitas factor' (for lack of a more precise word or phrase) --- in the issues intertwined with what instigated the riot of 1/6.

I think we talking more apples and oranges.

Quote:But, hey, its a free country. You can freely choose to count, or for that matter freely choose to discount, whatever factors your heart desires.

Right back at ya, amigo. I have, as you have, and now we are here.

Quote:The time, place, and aim of 1/6 chill me to the bone. Kind of creepily 3rd world-ish. Maybe thats not a bad thing. I hear motorvating around in tuktuks is pretty fun.

I was dismayed and disappointed that this protest got out of hand. I knew the Dems would use it for propaganda purposes, and they have, to the hilt. My personal feeling, expressed here several times, was that I didn't know if the election was stolen, but if it was, it was a fait accompli.

But I saw no evidence of a planned coup, and see none now. Where was the cannon to blast open the doors? Where was the plan to occupy the Capitol? Where was the detachment assigned to take over the media outlets? All I saw was a bunch of zealots with no plan at all. They came, they took selfies and souvenirs, then went back to their hotel rooms and went home the next day on the tickets they had previously purchased.

That’s ALL you saw? Holy willful blindness, Batman! What videos were you watching?

(03-01-2023 06:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 10:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-28-2023 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I see the summer riots as more destructive, longer lasting, and more violent in total.

Me too. This is what what I have been saying.

Quote: The aim of the riots (the racial angst) doesnt add or subtract to the seriousness.

I would think, based on your other statements, it would, since there is no evidence that police departments coast to coast are out to kill black people.

Quote:I see the riot of 1/6 as less destructive, shorter in scope, and less violent.

much less destructive, much less violent, and about 1/100 of the duration. Again, what I have been saying all along.

Quote:But the aim was to impede the mechanism of transition of power. Based on shrill lies from a fing cesspool of a President. So while the destruction, the scope, and the violence of 1/6 are all lesser in scope, the aim of the riot chills me to the bone.

I don't think people came from all over the country to impede the transition of power with violence, and I think the short-lived violence (compared to the BLM riots) and milder violence (same comparison) would have been doomed to failure - a very bad plan if in fact it was the plan. I think the leaders of our country could make a better plan than that if the goal was to overthrow a duly elected government. The very uselessness of the riot is some of the best evidence that it was not a planned coup.

OTOH, I also think there was a guiding force behind the BLM riots. The goal was to help the Democrats win in the elections. As soon as the polls showed it was beginning to hurt, they immediately and mysteriously stopped. 1-6 was a one-off. One-offs are a very poor way to run a coup.

Quote:By the way, did I mention I actually was in the midst of coup earlier in my life? I didnt think I would ever see a riot again in my life that was aimed specifically at the transition of power, and with zero substantive evidence to back it. Let alone in this country. Especially in this country.

No. when/where was this?

Quote:That portion, the aim, and the causation, tend to 'add' a bit to the import of the 1/6 riot. I guess you dont give the import that I do about that background of the riot *at* the Capitol. *For* a political purpose of actively impeding a transition of power. And, *without* a fing iota of proof behind the charge that instigated them.

After what we have recently been through with the Covid origin, going from NO PROOF to where we are now, I am skeptical of this as a basis. Also the Russian/Trump conspiracy, the Steele Dossier, the Hunter Biden/Biden family crisis, the 50 intelligence experts, yada, yada, yada.

Quote:In short -- summer 2020 wins on the counts of larger, greater in breadth, greater in number, greater in smashed Walgreens, more blocked cars, greater in damage, greater in looting, and greater in the sum of the violence. All in all, probably more selfies as well, since that seems to rear its head up in descriptions of the 'level of an act' for some reason.

More arson, more burning police cars, more everything. Except selfies. I have yet to see a selfie from the West Coast riots.

Selfies just point out the difference in attitude. The 1-6 guys were more touristy in their actions. Lots of the prosecutions are based on FB photos posted by the rioters themselves. Who has time in a planned coup to post selfies? Were the usurpers in the coup you were in posing for pictures and posting on FB as they went?

Quote:1/6 makes up ground and wins with a greater---- 'gravitas factor' (for lack of a more precise word or phrase) --- in the issues intertwined with what instigated the riot of 1/6.

I think we talking more apples and oranges.

Quote:But, hey, its a free country. You can freely choose to count, or for that matter freely choose to discount, whatever factors your heart desires.

Right back at ya, amigo. I have, as you have, and now we are here.

Quote:The time, place, and aim of 1/6 chill me to the bone. Kind of creepily 3rd world-ish. Maybe thats not a bad thing. I hear motorvating around in tuktuks is pretty fun.

I was dismayed and disappointed that this protest got out of hand. I knew the Dems would use it for propaganda purposes, and they have, to the hilt. My personal feeling, expressed here several times, was that I didn't know if the election was stolen, but if it was, it was a fait accompli.

But I saw no evidence of a planned coup, and see none now. Where was the cannon to blast open the doors? Where was the plan to occupy the Capitol? Where was the detachment assigned to take over the media outlets? All I saw was a bunch of zealots with no plan at all. They came, they took selfies and souvenirs, then went back to their hotel rooms and went home the next day on the tickets they had previously purchased.

That’s ALL you saw? Holy willful blindness, Batman! What videos were you watching?

Here are some:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOGXkMmtl6I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHN4smAcjR4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9WPuA6EUaw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=270F8s5TEKY (check around the 6:30 mark)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/inve...203158001/

No, 93, that's not all I saw - but apparently all some people saw was the worst of the worst, released by people who wanted to emphasize it - people like the 1-6 committee.

I saw worse videos than this - and better. I saw videos of people taking selfies or walking calmly through the capitol. I also saw a woman shot to death. (not by rioters)

Neither those nor the ones used by the 1-6 committee tell the whole story - but then, I never claimed that ALL that happened in the Capitol that day was selfies and singing. Just that a lot of what happened that was relatively benign, compared to the 100 days of Seattle's summer of 2020.

(03-02-2023 01:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 06:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  That’s ALL you saw? Holy willful blindness, Batman! What videos were you watching?

I saw worse videos than this - and better. I saw videos of people taking selfies or walking calmly through the capitol. I also saw a woman shot to death. (not by rioters)

Shouldnt you say "(not by meleers)"?

Or do you now think the common thoughts of 'crowd', 'protest', 'disturbance', and 'violence' are now solid enough in relation to 1/6 so that "rioter" is now aptly descriptive?

I dont know if I can really function well with the incongruous concept of a rioter being central in the actions of mere melee.

Maybe it was one really solid badass meleer that got promoted to rioter while the function was still a melee?



Be good OO...

(03-01-2023 02:35 PM)BSWBRice Wrote:  Stray thought tangentially related to the “Big Cheat” as Tanq calls it - is it really that hard to believe that Trump lost? Large swaths of the country were legitimately just sick of him.

Having spent a little more than a year living in SF... I can tell you with certainty that large swaths of that area simply believe that most of the country is morons... as in they cannot fathom how anyone can possibly vote for anything other than some of the most socialist policies on the face of the earth, other than simply being ignorant. I've met people in NY and DC who feel the same, including an aunt, who thinks her sister... a decorated military officer and nurse... is part of a cult of ignorance that is Texas because she supports the right...

I am 110% positive that there are similar swaths of the right, and I've met many of them... who would support Satan over any Democrat.... and not begrudgingly.... and they similarly can't understand how anyone could possibly vote for anyone OTHER than whomever has R next to their name.

FTR, these aren't stupid people (by and large on either side)... They are perhaps stubborn, lacking in empathy or the ability to 'imagine being wrong'... but they are not stupid nor ignorant.

Yes, many of these people can't possibly imagine that Trump lost... and it doesn't take many to form a meaningful protest

(03-02-2023 02:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-02-2023 01:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-01-2023 06:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  That’s ALL you saw? Holy willful blindness, Batman! What videos were you watching?

I saw worse videos than this - and better. I saw videos of people taking selfies or walking calmly through the capitol. I also saw a woman shot to death. (not by rioters)

Shouldnt you say "(not by meleers)"?

Or do you now think the common thoughts of 'crowd', 'protest', 'disturbance', and 'violence' are now solid enough in relation to 1/6 so that "rioter" is now aptly descriptive?

I dont know if I can really function well with the incongruous concept of a rioter being central in the actions of mere melee.

Maybe it was one really solid badass meleer that got promoted to rioter while the function was still a melee?



Be good OO...

I was being polite, not wanting the semantics to distract any more from the topic. I was hoping to avoid exactly what you are doing - arguing over semantics.

At this point it is not even a melee.

I suppose in your celebration of a semantic victory (should I say triumph instead) you missed the video of the protesters America-hating insurrectionists filing neatly through the building, staying between the ropes? Did you notice they were photographing papers, not burning them? Did you notice the guards talking politely with them, not in fear? Did you notice the Buffalo Man wanting somebody to take his picture?

Nah.

They were rioters, in the sense of any disturbance being a riot if it involves three or more people. I saw a riot at the pitcher's mound in Omaha on 6-23-03. Three or more people (a crowd) behaving in an unruly fashion in public. Somebody could of been hurt. This was the whole point of pointing out that while thunderstorms and Cat 5 hurricanes are both under the canopy of "weather events with wind and rain", they are different, something you ignored and then twisted.

I was pointing out that the 1-6 event was very different from the Summer of rioting, not only in extent, but in timing, and other factors, and also based on a premise more false than as a stolen election, since you want evidence. Why don't you demand the evidence that all PDs are racist organization, just out to kill black people? You chose to twist this into a defense of the event (singular) by ignoring and mocking every single point I put forward and every reference, metaphor, and video I posted. Who else here posts in this fashion? I can think of one, now two...

So I offer my sincerest hope that your mental fog clears soon, your vision untunnels, and you will once again be able to discuss issues without rancor, namecalling, and the inability to offer fair viewpoints and respect to those who disagree with you. My best to you, Tanq.

That’s a fair point, Ham. No doubt folks are more hardened than ever in terms of the party they support. I guess this is just the first time I’ve seen so many resort to “well they MUST’VE cheated” if their candidate didn’t win.

As a rice fan, maybe I’m just more used to losing than most lol