Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1110961285/the-next-jan-6-committee-hearing-will-focus-on-the-role-of-qanon-and-extremists

The next Jan. 6 committee hearing will focus on the role of QAnon and extremists

NPR - July 11, 2022 - Tom Dreisbach - Excerpts Below...

Tuesday's hearing of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol will focus on the role of the pro-Trump conspiracy theory known as QAnon, as well as the role of extremist groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, aides to the committee said. A key area of inquiry for congressional investigators has been possible ties between former President Trump and his allies and far-right extremists. And aides said the committee would present new evidence about how Trump's tweet calling for a "big protest" on Jan. 6th served as a kind of call to arms. "Be there, will be wild!" Trump tweeted...

Extremist groups have been at the forefront of the federal criminal investigation into the Capitol breach. Justice Department prosecutors have brought criminal charges against more than 130 people with apparent ties to extremist groups, including more than three dozen who appear to have expressed support for QAnon, according to NPR's database of charges. Leaders of both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers have been charged with seditious conspiracy, the most serious criminal charge stemming from the Jan. 6, 2021 attack. Three defendants have pleaded guilty to that charge, while other defendants are fighting the allegations...

Aides to the Jan. 6 select committee cited longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn as possible conduits between extremist groups and people in Trump's orbit. In 2020, both Stone and Flynn received presidential pardons from Trump. The two men had separately been convicted on charges connected to former Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election...

Already-public information suggests ties between Stone, Flynn and extremists.

Stone, for example, has worked closely with Proud Boy leader Enrique Tarrio, and the two have appeared at events together. Tarrio was not in Washington, D.C. during the Capitol riot, but prosecutors have alleged that he conspired with members of the group to plan the attack. Tarrio has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Members of the Oath Keepers also acted as part of a security detail for Stone on the morning of Jan. 6, prior to the riot. A week later, Stone said in an Instagram video that he was initially supposed to lead a march from the Ellipse to the Capitol that day, where he would give a speech, but he ultimately "decided that I was not interested in doing any of those things." He said he only supported peaceful protest that day, and "left town while demonstrators were still, to my astonishment, inside the Capitol."

Flynn has also received security help from the Oath Keepers, including at a pro-Trump event in Dec. 2020, according to the group's leader, Stewart Rhodes. At that event, Rhodes said Trump should "drop the hammer" and invoke the Insurrection Act, "because if he does not do it, we'll have to fight a bloody civil war or a bloody revolution to take our country back against a corrupt, illegitimate regime." Rhodes has also pleaded not guilty to charges of seditious conspiracy.

[More at Link Above]

BLM Leaders who encouraged demonstrations and marching to object to the killings of Blacks were not criminally responsible for those who subsequently rioted and looted stores and burned them down. 

Presidents have constitutional rights as well.  They can encourage supporters to demonstrate to their causes including objecting election results.  The legal system and not a partisan committee must prove that the president encouraged these demonstrators to physically and illegally invade the capital. 

Right now, this is just a bunch of political posturing by Democrats.  It's a show trial.

[Peter McLennan]

That's because you disagree with my political views.  I get it. If my views matched yours, you'd think my method was great. 

So, your argument is that we’re just as myopic as you, but in the opposite political dimension?  We’re as much at fault as you?

[Alan Klein]

So, your argument is that we’re just as myopic as you, but in the opposite political dimension?  We’re as much at fault as you?

Probably.  We're all biased by our prejudices.   

[Alan Klein]

Today, the Bidens learned that Latinos are not tacos.  Well, at least she didn't call them murderers and rapists like that other guy.

Jill Biden slammed for comparing Latino people to tacos in what Hispanic journalists called a 'stereotype'
"We are not tacos. Our heritage as Latinos is shaped by various diasporas, cultures & food traditions. Do not reduce us to stereotypes."
https://www.businessinsider.com/jill-biden-slammed-compared-latinos-tacos-hispanic-journalists-say-stereotype-2022-7

[Robert Roaldi]

Probably.  We're all biased by our prejudices. 

Prejudice is the right word. If you can't see the distinction between a President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system and rioters running amok after police shootings, you have a cognitive problem. They are NOT equivalent just because you choose to simple-mindedly attempt to place them on opposite "sides" of some arbitrary and largely meaningless political divide.

Especially when it has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion on these pages that those BLM riots were not actually as shown on TV and that criminal charges were laid in many instances, something you continually ignore or deny. Pretending not to see reality may be part of your debating style, I suppose, but it will be necessarily judged negatively by those you debate with. But that's your call.

Your attitude seems to be that all opinions are valid. That's quite simply not true. You have the right to hold any opinion you choose in the sense that the government can't put you in jail for having it, but others can still call you on it if they feel it's not valid.

[digitaldog]

I'm sorry you don't like my style of debating. Should I change my style of photography too?

Yes!

[PeterAit]

Presidents have constitutional rights as well.  They can encourage supporters to demonstrate to their causes including objecting election results.  The legal system and not a partisan committee must prove that the president encouraged these demonstrators to physically and illegally invade the capital. 

Right now, this is just a bunch of political posturing by Democrats.  It's a show trial.

It's not any kind of a trial. The committee cannot find anyone guilty or impose punishment. It's a fact-finding effort and the most they can do is refer cases to the Justice Department. And the facts they are finding are quite chilling, but the Trump lickspittles dismiss all this because they do not care about the threat to our democracy that Trump and his acolytes represented.

Of course there is a political element to this, I mean...DUH! To accuse politicians of being political is like accusing a frog of eating flies.

And where were your complaints during the seven (or was it eight?) investigations into Benghazi where the GOP tried desperately (and failed) to pin things on Clinton? And where her clear and factual answers often made the Republical interlocutors look like retarded monkeys?

[Alan Klein]

Prejudice is the right word. If you can't see the distinction between a  and rioters running amok after police shootings, you have a cognitive problem. They are NOT equivalent just because you choose to simple-mindedly attempt to place them on opposite "sides" of some arbitrary and largely meaningless political divide.

Especially when it has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion on these pages that those BLM riots were not actually as shown on TV and that criminal charges were laid in many instances, something you continually ignore or deny. Pretending not to see reality may be part of your debating style, I suppose, but it will be necessarily judged negatively by those you debate with. But that's your call.

Your attitude seems to be that all opinions are valid. That's quite simply not true. You have the right to hold any opinion you choose in the sense that the government can't put you in jail for having it, but others can still call you on it if they feel it's not valid.

Just as criminal charges were placed against some BLM rioters who looted, the same was done with Trump supporters who trespassed the Capital and did other criminal activities.  But to throw around the charge that Trump was a leader in criminal activity has not been proven.  And he certainly is allowed legally to encourage demonstrations against the vote.  He subsequently bought his claims to court and the courts threw them out and he left his presidency on Jan 20th as the constitution required.

Your claim that "...President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system..." is hyperbole.

[Alan Klein]

Prejudice is the right word. If you can't see the distinction between a President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system and rioters running amok after police shootings, you have a cognitive problem. They are NOT equivalent just because you choose to simple-mindedly attempt to place them on opposite "sides" of some arbitrary and largely meaningless political divide.

Especially when it has been pointed out to you on more than one occasion on these pages that those BLM riots were not actually as shown on TV and that criminal charges were laid in many instances, something you continually ignore or deny. Pretending not to see reality may be part of your debating style, I suppose, but it will be necessarily judged negatively by those you debate with. But that's your call.

Your attitude seems to be that all opinions are valid. That's quite simply not true. You have the right to hold any opinion you choose in the sense that the government can't put you in jail for having it, but others can still call you on it if they feel it's not valid.

Are Democrats who say the Supreme Court justices who voted against Roe should be harassed guilty of criminal incitemment of those people who harassed one of the Justice in a restaurant and may have illegally picketed their homes? A politician is allowed to encourage people to be vociferous in their demonstrations. 

The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech is often noisy, controversial, demeaning, and even hostile.   But that doesn't mean it's illegal.  There has to be a real relationship to the criminal.  Otherwise, everyone would be afraid to speak fearing they'll be blamed for other people's criminal activities.

[PeterAit]

Today, the Bidens learned that Latinos are not tacos.  Well, at least she didn't call them murderers and rapists like that other guy.

Jill Biden slammed for comparing Latino people to tacos in what Hispanic journalists called a 'stereotype'
"We are not tacos. Our heritage as Latinos is shaped by various diasporas, cultures & food traditions. Do not reduce us to stereotypes."
https://www.businessinsider.com/jill-biden-slammed-compared-latinos-tacos-hispanic-journalists-say-stereotype-2022-7

More silly-assed right wing tripe. Her statement clearly meant that just as there is great diversity among tacos, these is great diversity among Hispanics. Poorly chosen words, perhaps, but hardly offensive.

[Alan Klein]

More silly-assed right wing tripe. Her statement clearly meant that just as there is great diversity among tacos, these is great diversity among Hispanics. Poorly chosen words, perhaps, but hardly offensive.

I was not complaining,  It was Latinos who complained about her words as being offensive.

[Peter McLennan]

Your claim that "...President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system..." is hyperbole.

Nope. It's not hyperbole, it's the truth.  We all saw it on television. Live, unedited.  Attempted democracide.

(Robert)If you can't see the distinction between a President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system and rioters running amok after police shootings, you have a cognitive problem.

In other words, it's a false (desperately false) equivalence.  One that you've stated here before ad nauseum. It's appalling. It's pure, willful, blind prejudice.

In other words, it's invalid, like the rest of your "opinions" that are based on erroneous economic, scientific, social and political assumptions born of your rightist prejudice.

[TechTalk]

I get it.

You don't get it because you can't get it. You've walled yourself off from the possibility of ever getting it.

But, you're more comfortable living inside the mental prison you've created. So, enjoy.

[Peter McLennan]

Alan: how much of the Jan hearings have you watched?

[TechTalk]

Right now, this is just a bunch of political posturing by Democrats.  It's a show trial.

Your claim that "...President encouraging a mob to overthrow the democratic system..." is hyperbole.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
John Snape, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

[Alan Klein]

Alan: how much of the Jan hearings have you watched?

Very little.  But every time I take a look, there's another Democrat accusing Trump of trying to overthrow the government.  They found him guilty before the show trial, I mean hearings, even started. 

[Alan Klein]

Just to change the topic a little.  I see in Great Britain that they're working on selecting the next Prime Minister to replace Boris Johnson who's being fired for refusing to comb his hair and other immoral acts.  In thinking about how many feel the American electoral system does not democratically select the president (it isn't democratic), I don't see how the GB selection process is more democratic in a parliamentary system. 

From what I hear, there are 8 potential nominees.  Who selected them?  Also, the people don't vote for any of these, I don't believe.  One of them will be selected to be PM by an undemocratic process in a smoke filled room, behind closed doors, by a bunch of political hacks.  When selected, does the government send up some smoke like the Vatican? 

[TechTalk]

Alan: how much of the Jan hearings have you watched?

Brick wall close-up view
Pawel Wozniak, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

[Alan Klein]

Brick wall close-up view
Pawel Wozniak, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

We need that wall at the southern border. 

[TechTalk]

Trump's Dream Wall


Berlin Wall death strip, 1977
GeorgeLouis at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons