We've had this discussion a hundred times here. Someone cites a source and someone that just wants to ridicule the poster and source, pops up and does just that, because they are too lazy to defend it properly with sources from their own Big Media. Sad really.
I'm not referring to anything like that. What I'm referring to is the current perspective that people have to be completely destroyed for even the smallest slight, as interpreted by self-appointed judge, jury and executioners.If you are referring to deplatforming, private companies can kick off anyone they like. Perpetuating “The Big Lie”, in particular by politicians and media figures who ought to know that what they were saying would foment insurrection, would seem to me like a good reason to kicked off. As I asked above, if you truly believed that that the election was stolen from your candidate by a widespread fraud scheme the likes of which never seen before in a stable western democracy and democracy was now dead in your country, how would you not react violently? Especially when none other than the “Leader of the Free World” was telling you so?
If you’re referring to going after perpetrators criminally, as someone on the centre-right I say investigate and prosecute all involved to the full extent of the law. Including politicians and media figures inciting their supporters with The Big Lie. This includes impeaching and convicting the Arsonist-in-Chief. This will serve to dissuade other would-be demagogues that think inciting an insurrectionist mob to keep Congress from performing a constitutionally mandatory duty is a good idea.
I am not even go into all the other impeachable acts he’s committed in his time in office...
So, no, I don’t view holding people accountable for incitement or insurrection to be a “Stalinist witch-hunt”.
To me, it sounds like after a proper investigation, and if there is evidence, prosecution may be warranted. I didn’t read any witch-hunt in there.To wit:
Pelosi suggests criminal charges for any lawmaker who helped with Capitol riot
Summary: We don't have any evidence, or suspects, but we know they did it, and we need to root them out and punish them.
You reading way too much into it. I'm no conspiracy theorist and your attempt to paint me as such is laughable. And you weren't polite. You were trying to be cute and negate me. It was a backhanded attack simply for voicing an opinion you don't agree with. I simply believe at leaving no stone unturned and looking deeper and more thorough. If there was one, there could be more. I didn't say there was though. I put forth no theories on who caused what. My loyalty to Trump has to do with his accomplishments, not his personality. I'm sorry if that's upsetting for you. Attack the message, not the messenger. Anything else is childish clag like intimation I'm a low-info reader who feel righteous anger reading said articles and getting conned into sharing and amplifying it without doing any due diligence. Thanks for that. I know who I'm dealing with now.So despite the desire of the far-right propaganda "news" websites to score an easy win against BLM and/or "The Left" and to sow doubts about the events of 6 Jan, and despite how many conservatives will ultimately disseminate said propaganda without doing any fact-checking or confirmatory research, it would seem that the truth is not as cleanly packaged as professional disinformation peddlers like Charlie Kirk would like.
Below is a 23-part Twitter thread from 26 November from a bona fide far left Seattle-based activist, outing John Sullivan as either a non-aligned anarchist, grifter, crazy person, and/or right-wing agent provocateur:
It's worth noting that this account is almost certainly a grassroots true believer in leftist causes. As their thread from November has now made waves, they've pinned the following tweet to their account stating why they won't cooperate with the FBI:
"We are a team of prison and police abolitionists. While we’ve established our concerns about John’s impact on protester safety, we maintain our stance against state violence and incarceration. We have no interest in celebrating cop shit or making light of a Black man's arrest."
I have read the whole thread as well as the screen capped testimonials from others in that world included in the thread, and don't think it's conclusive as to who John Sullivan actually is based off of the information provided. According to the thread, John Sullivan was blacklisted from both the Salt Lake City and Portland protest "scenes" due to his behaviour. In my mind, though, it doesn't really matter why he was at the Capitol riot on 6 Jan:
The problem arises when far-right "journalism" intentionally runs half-truths and misinformation in order to score gotcha "He's BLM!" points against "The Left" and drive clicks to their garbage websites, and low-info readers who feel righteous anger reading said articles get conned into sharing and amplifying it without doing any due diligence. As stated by the classic (albeit oft-misattributed) quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on".
- Is he a far-left extremist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in order to make conservatives look bad? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
- Is he a true believing anarchist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in an attempt to destabilize the US Government, without a clean left/right political bias? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
- Is he a right-wing agent provocateur who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in either attempt to support Trump's insurrection and/or to try to make BLM look like they were involved? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
Regardless of the details of who this person actually is, the conspiracy theory that 6 Jan was actually an "Antifa" and/or "Deep State" false flag designed to make Trump supporters look bad has grown wings and taken off thanks to social media sharing and the click-generating algorithms of these websites.
Now maybe it wasn't your intent to propagate US conspiracy theories on a Canadian military website, but given your steadfast defence of Trumpism the last few years and the sentence I highlighted in your second quote, "Now to arrest the other 199 and see where the allegiance lay.", it's difficult to read it any other way, even if I'm being polite and generous.
For ref, attached the lawsuit one of Trump's lawyers were hit with from NPR. Sidney Powell is being sued for $1.3 BILLION by dominion voting for defamation for spreading 'demonstrably false information'. This is the one were she claimed they rigged the election and Hugo Chavez planned it all (despite dying in 2013). She may have been a big lawyer at one point, but now she's showing her whole ass and looks deranged.I'm not going to argue legal procedure, of which you sound like a practitioner. I can only assume that what I see Trump’s lawyers say, is true. I'm pretty sure they can't lie in public to the public, as opposed to faceless, unknowns on the internet giving their opinions as fact. I simply repeated what I've heard them say in press conferences. Far from being sub par, as some state, Giuliani smacked down the Mafia in NY and Powell is no slouch either. Both have argued in front of the Supreme Court. No place for sub par counselors. Anyway, thanks for your insight and I'll look into this more.
Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.To me, it sounds like after a proper investigation, and if there is evidence, prosecution may be warranted. I didn’t read any witch-hunt in there.
There is a lot for investigators to work on for the next few months with this putsch.
Quite possible. Although, like the government, big tech companies will often countersue or drag things out to bleed the other side dry. Is that case here? Maybe. All I/ we can do is let it run its course and hope the truth wins out. No matter our hypothesis, this is going to be going on for a long, long time. So I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle about it now. Thanks for the link. It's hard to know who to believe anymore and I think that's a big part of the problem.For ref, attached the lawsuit one of Trump's lawyers were hit with from NPR. Sidney Powell is being sued for $1.3 BILLION by dominion voting for defamation for spreading 'demonstrably false information'. This is the one were she claimed they rigged the election and Hugo Chavez planned it all (despite dying in 2013). She may have been a big lawyer at one point, but now she's showing her whole ass and looks deranged.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/9548...r-trump-lawyer-seeking-1-3-billion-in-damages
So yeah, they can lie in public like anyone else, and like anyone else there are consequences when they go too far, but they have no inherent obligation to tell the whole truth in a press conference. In this case her insane accusation have resulted in employees of Dominion Voting having their lives threatened directly, as well as things like blowing up the building. That's pretty serious, when they've yet to present zero actual evidence in court, and frequently they've refused to actually repeat the claims in court because the judge could just throw them in jail or have their licence pulled.
Probably varies by state, but people can also file complaints with the Bar association if they really do something crazy (which I believe has happened for both Powell and Guiliani). Unless they lie in court though, they won't be charged with anything. Multiple times they've made pretty big claims in public, then dropped them in court because they didn't want to be charged. The most obvious case that comes to mind is linked below.
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/n...inded-of-codes-of-professional-conduct/335669
Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.
While I have a quite low opinion of Boebert, as I do anyone who drinks the Qool-Aid, she only tweeted one pertinent tweet that I saw, and that was that Pelosi had been removed from the chambers. That would have been a significant and noteworthy thing in an event that brewed up in a matter of minutes. I won't infer ill intent on Boebert's part unless corroborated by anything else. Likely she's simply not security conscious or doesn't have a particularly good head on her shoulders in a crisis. But it's a far cry from, say, revealing where Pelosi (or another prominent/likely target) was brought TO, or where they presently WERE.Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.
No worries, I get it. There is a lot of insanity, and I tend to start at not believing anyone, checking receipts, and reading both sides (or more) of the arguments to figure things out for myself. I see equally insane comments under news articles pretty much anywhere, but weirdly find Al-Jazeera to frequently be fairly non-partisan.Quite possible. Although, like the government, big tech companies will often countersue or drag things out to bleed the other side dry. Is that case here? Maybe. All I/ we can do is let it run its course and hope the truth wins out. No matter our hypothesis, this is going to be going on for a long, long time. So I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle about it now. Thanks for the link. It's hard to know who to believe anymore and I think that's a big part of the problem.
Tanks!
Sounds awful hectic and disorientating. BZ to the Officers.The mob “backed the blue” until the blue enforced the law on them
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/police-officers-capitol-riot-hodges-fanone/index.html
Not to beat a dead horse, but I thought she said the system was designed around Chávez's instruction and had been in use since that time. Meh, like I say, time will tell. I'm not getting worked up about it and will wait til it hits court.No worries, I get it. There is a lot of insanity, and I tend to start at not believing anyone, checking receipts, and reading both sides (or more) of the arguments to figure things out for myself. I see equally insane comments under news articles pretty much anywhere, but weirdly find Al-Jazeera to frequently be fairly non-partisan.
In this particular case I don't think it's the case of the big tech company sueing her to bleed her dry; I'm sure the whole news conference is posted unedited in a few spots and the claims are genuinely nuts. Judge for yourself of course, but she legitimately said that Dominion rigged the election somehow under the direction of Hugo Chavez, who died well before Trump got into politics. The whole thing was crazy.
Pretty massive figure, but as the entire business relies on customer trust, which she blew out of the water while reprenting POTUS, probably not as inflated as it seems (relative to how the US lawsuits work). If I remember correctly, Trump dropped her as a lawyer shortly after this (for a few days anyway).
She had made the claims in a few suits, but they were dismissed by the judges because they didn't provide any actual evidence. Linked to a Forbes article below, but if you search for the individual cases the full judgements should be posted somewhere. The ones I browsed through were really pretty brutal, and that was from a selection of Democratic and conservative Republican judges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...suit-gets-shut-down-in-court/?sh=12e44b781f88
For context though, she had previously tweeted 'today is 1776' (ie the start of the American Revolution) and when she tweeted that the Senate was sealed and the speaker was removed there were crowds in the building chanting 'Where is Nancy'. At the very least, that should be investigated IMHO, especially if they were given direction not to tweet anything by the police after it started.While I have a quite low opinion of Boebert, as I do anyone who drinks the Qool-Aid, she only tweeted one pertinent tweet that I saw, and that was that Pelosi had been removed from the chambers. That would have been a significant and noteworthy thing in an event that brewed up in a matter of minutes. I won't infer ill intent on Boebert's part unless corroborated by anything else. Likely she's simply not security conscious or doesn't have a particularly good head on her shoulders in a crisis. But it's a far cry from, say, revealing where Pelosi (or another prominent/likely target) was brought TO, or where they presently WERE.
What I'm really interested to see follow up on is the allegation that some members of congress gave 'tours' to some of the insurrectionists that may have effectively served as recces. I'm also interested in the allegations that some of the insurrectionists had maps marked with the specific locations of otherwise unnoteworthy offices that belonged to major players in Congress.
Did I say fake news? checks post nope. It wasn't a comment on the news it was a comment on your choice of news sources using humour. I'm no Charlie Hebdo (see what I did there?) but one tries.So, you're saying PM is fake news? I suppose that makes the FBI affidavit fake also?
We've had this discussion a hundred times here. Someone cites a source and someone that just wants to ridicule the poster and source, pops up and does just that, because they are too lazy to defend it properly with sources from their own Big Media. Sad really.
'today is 1776' (ie the start of the American Revolution
