Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[jeremyrh]

I believe Joe wanted to be woken up when the death count reached 60,000. Maybe someone should give him a wake up call.

I think that was actually Slobodan, who has fallen into silence - probably in despair at the country being taken over by Communists, Muslims, homosexuals and other assorted folk.

[Alan Klein]

Their job is to defend the United States from ALL enemies foreign AND domestic. I'm sure that you've heard the words of that oath many many times, but your ability to block out information from your mind will never cease to amaze me.

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

Demonstrators aren't enemies of the United States.  In any case, the Pentagon offered the Capitol Police help before the march.  They refused.  Your ability to block out information from your mind will never cease to amaze me.

[Robert Roaldi]

The US military's job is to defend the country from attack from foreigners, not police American citizens. 

Tell that to the 4 dead at Kent State.

[Robert Roaldi]

I think that was actually Slobodan, who has fallen into silence - probably in despair at the country being taken over by Communists, Muslims, homosexuals and other assorted folk.

To be fair, Slobodan may have meant to wake him up when there were more than 60,000 dead in one month, not in total.  Oh, wait.

[Robert Roaldi]

Tucker Carlson is vying for this year's hypocrite of the year award.

Tucker turns on Trump: Fox host says president has reached his 'shelf life' as he blames him for inciting the U.S. Capitol riot after he 'recklessly encouraged' his supporters

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9125099/Tucker-Carlson-turns-Trump-blames-president-U-S-Capitol-riot.html

He detected a change in wind direction.

[MattBurt]

  Should they have done so against black demonstrators?

If the black demonstrators were storming the capital then yes.

[Manoli]

Demonstrators aren't enemies of the United States.  In any case, the Pentagon offered the Capitol Police help before the march.  They refused.  Your ability to block out information from your mind will never cease to amaze me.

Are you *sure* about that ? 'cos that directly contradicts the info from other well-informed sources.
Trump fired Espers after the Election (couldn't resist mocking him by referring to him as Yespers) ostensibly because he refused to call in the National Guard during the BLM riots.

Anyway, numerous reports directly contradicting your version.
I doubt the truth will ever be, verifiably, known.

[TechTalk]

Demonstrators aren't enemies of the United States.

If you had been around in 1814 when the British invaded the Capitol, I suspect that you may have minimized their actions and referred to them as foreign tourists.

[Manoli]

Almost 72 hours on, still feeling *uneasy* that the Congress kick-back is being led by Pelosi and Schumer. To use a soccer analogy, they're the sort of players that are more likely to score an 'own-goal' than apply the killer touch to the opposition.

If she's going to go for impeachment, she needs to be 200% sure she has the support and numbers in the Senate. If she misfires, she's just giving Trump one huge leg-up. If she succeeds, hopefully, Trump and his ilk are history as he'll be banned from ever running for President again. Latest post (from the FT) is that < she's contacted top US military officer to warn of 'unsable president' launching nuclear strike > .
Also NYT & others reporting that she's already announced that the House would move to impeach unless he resigns "immediately".

She needs to focus on her numbers first and mouth off later. The only scenario where I'd feel 'confident' would be if Donald was in the Dock and Kamala Harris was prosecuting. A slam-dunk as you say in the USA !

Edit:

> Republican senator Ben Sasse said he was willing to impeach and remove Trump, making him the first of the GOP caucus who had voted against convicting the president last year to change position - but so far no others have followed;
> After his cabinet was rocked by resignations, one of his closest aides Hope Hicks announced she would resign next week - although she claimed it was her plan all along - and White House counsel Pat Cipollone was reported to be on the brink too;
> Washington D.C.'s district attorney Karl Racine hinted that he is investigating Trump, Don Jr, and Rudy Giuliani over inciting the riot at the wild rally held just outside the White House where the president demanded 'strength' and said he would lead a march on the Capitol and Giuliani demanded 'trial by combat';
> Trump was revealed to have only tweeted a video on Thursday night admitting there would be a new administration after he was warned by Cipollone that he faces charges of incitement; 

[Alan Klein]

Are you *sure* about that ? 'cos that directly contradicts the info from other well-informed sources.
Trump fired Espers after the Election (couldn't resist mocking him by referring to him as Yespers) ostensibly because he refused to call in the National Guard during the BLM riots.

Anyway, numerous reports directly contradicting your version.
I doubt the truth will ever be, verifiably, known.

But the truth is the Capitol Police didn't do their job.  They weren't prepared.  The commander was fired for incompetence. They have something over 2000 police.  If they put up a couple of lines, we wouldn't be talking about this today.  Many of the demonstrators acted peacefully and just walked in.  They took selfies with some of the police.  Then, a few jerks decided to rush the place and it got out of control.  Especially in places where there were no police who were out to lunch.  Were the trespasser wrong.  Absolutely.  They should go to jail or be fined and pay for any damages.  But that's why you have police present  To prevent demonstrators from becoming mobs which happens when there are no police around.  But to call it sedition is just silly and political.  That would never stand in court.

[TechTalk]

In any case, the Pentagon offered the Capitol Police help before the march.  They refused.  Your ability to block out information from your mind will never cease to amaze me.

I haven't made any comment that said anything to the contrary. It's your active imagination at work again.

The who, what, why, where, when, and how of security planning is a developing story that I will follow. You will continue trying to grossly minimize what happened at the Capitol and divert attention away from Trump and the sedition and insurrection that occurred at the Capitol carried out by his supporters.

[Alan Klein]

If you had been around in 1814 when the British invaded the Capitol, I suspect that you may have minimized their actions and referred to them as foreign tourists.

Why are you confusing British soldiers who came with guns and torches to burn the place down with American demonstrators exercising their right of political speech?  No one shot up the place or torched it although they illegally trespassed and some had fistfights with guards.  To compare these yokels to the British in the War of 1812 when they burned down Washington DC is just silly. No one's going to take you seriously. 

[TechTalk]

Why are you confusing British soldiers who came with guns and torches to burn the place down with American demonstrators exercising their right of political speech?  No one shot up the place or torched it although they illegally trespassed and some had fistfights with guards.  To compare these yokels to the British in the War of 1812 when they burned down Washington DC is just silly. No one's going to take you seriously.

You can put your sentiments about the "trespassing" "yokels" in a sympathy card to the family of the Capitol Police officer that was beaten to death.

In the meanwhile, being taken "seriously" for a satirical remark on your ongoing minimizing of a riot at the Capitol will not be a cause of concern to me.

[Alan Klein]

Almost 72 hours on, still feeling *uneasy* that the Congress kick-back is being led by Pelosi and Schumer. To use a soccer analogy, they're the sort of players that are more likely to score an 'own-goal' than apply the killer touch to the opposition.

If she's going to go for impeachment, she needs to be 200% sure she has the support and numbers in the Senate. If she misfires, she's just giving Trump one huge leg-up. If she succeeds, hopefully, Trump & his ilk are history as he'll be banned from ever running for President again. Latest post (from the FT) is that < she's contacted top US military officer to warn of 'unsable president' launching nuclear strike > .
Also NYT & others reporting that she's already announced that the House would move to impeach unless he resigns "immediately".

She needs to focus on her numbers first and mouth off later. The only scenario where I'd feel 'confident' would be if Donald was in the Dock and Kamala Harris was prosecuting. A slam-dunk as you say in the USA !

Edit:

> Republican senator Ben Sasse said he was willing to impeach and remove Trump, making him the first of the GOP caucus who had voted against convicting the president last year to change position - but so far no others have followed;
> After his cabinet was rocked by resignations, one of his closest aides Hope Hicks announced she would resign next week - although she claimed it was her plan all along - and White House counsel Pat Cipollone was reported to be on the brink too;
> Washington D.C.'s district attorney Karl Racine hinted that he is investigating Trump, Don Jr, and Rudy Giuliani over inciting the riot at the wild rally held just outside the White House where the president demanded 'strength' and said he would lead a march on the Capitol and Giuliani demanded 'trial by combat';
> Trump was revealed to have only tweeted a video on Thursday night admitting there would be a new administration after he was warned by Cipollone that he faces charges of incitement; 

Do you think we should charge all the politicians who incited to riot during the BLM demonstrations? After all, their accusations against the police seems to have caused many people to use that as an excuse to burn and loot.  Where do you draw the line?

[Alan Klein]

You can put your sentiments about the "trespassing" "yokels" in a sympathy card to the family of the Capitol Police officer that was beaten to death.

In the meanwhile, being taken "seriously" for a satirical remark on your ongoing minimizing of a riot at the Capitol will not be a cause of concern to me.

Those who did that act should be prosecuted and sent away to prison for a long time.  However, that doesn't make this sedition. Nor does it violate any laws allowing people to demonstrate and petition the government for redress. You're confusing the issues just like some confused the legal right of people to march in the BLM demonstrations with those who illegally went on to loot and burn.

[TechTalk]

Where do you draw the line?

The line is between expressing legitimate concern over racism and the fact that black citizens are killed in police interactions at a far higher rate than other citizens and the fantasy of lies that an election was stolen and being encouraged to fight to take back our country from those that committed the imaginary crime being repeatedly sold to a group of cultish fanatics.

[TechTalk]

Those who did that act should be prosecuted and sent away to prison for a long time.  However, that doesn't make this sedition.

to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

[Alan Klein]

The line is between expressing legitimate concern over racism and the fact that black citizens are killed in police interactions at a far higher rate than other citizens and the fantasy of lies that an election was stolen and being encouraged to fight to take back our country from those that committed the imaginary crime being repeatedly sold to a group of cultish fanatics.

There are many who disagree with your premise about blacks.  However, just like blacks have a right to demonstrate, so do others for their beliefs and political viewpoints.  It's not up to you to decide whose beliefs are valid.  That's what the Chinese Communist Party is doing right now in Hong Kong, shutting up and arresting those who disagree with the party using police powers to decide whose political views will be allowed to be expressed.  Your arguments are anti-democratic and anti-constitutional. They're in direct opposition to the First Amendment.

[Alan Klein]

to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

I answered this quote in an earlier post. Look it up.  What they did isn't sedition.  There was no intent to overthrow the US government or seize property by force.  They were trespassing and fighting with guards. I couldn't imagine Attorney General Merrick Garland charging these people with sedition.  But maybe they'll do it for political points.  After all they charged Trump with treason and colluding with the Russians.  The Democrats would stoop to anything to help them politically. 

[Manoli]

Do you think we should charge all the politicians who incited to riot during the BLM demonstrations?

Perhaps read my post again?

I made no comment other than to express a concern that Pelosi and Schumer need to be sure of where there going before screaming 'impeachment'. The consequences of being wrong a second time will just play into the hands of Trump who has laid the ground for a rear guard movement whose sole purpose is and will be to undermine the incoming administration.