January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[ToastDunk]

There are always questions, none of which will be answered by HCR.

I don't understand; exactly what do you find objectionable in the HCR piece posted by CU88? It is completely sound, heavy on facts of record and light on opinion. It's well written. What's your gripe? Or does the article not fit your preferred narrative?

We know why...

Sorry boys, I don't trust anything that HCR reports on.. you all trust her but I don't trust anybody that reports with an extreme FLP bias. If she floats your boat that is fine by me.

I don't want to burden you, but I am actually interested in what, exactly, in this piece you think is biased? Or is it simply that you will not, under any circumstances, read anything by HCR? Even I read Andrew McCarty man....

It's a bit odd to reject it out of hand. Someone please point out all the baseless claims in this piece.

[seacoaster]

There are always questions, none of which will be answered by HCR.

I don't understand; exactly what do you find objectionable in the HCR piece posted by CU88? It is completely sound, heavy on facts of record and light on opinion. It's well written. What's your gripe? Or does the article not fit your preferred narrative?

We know why...

Sorry boys, I don't trust anything that HCR reports on.. you all trust her but I don't trust anybody that reports with an extreme FLP bias. If she floats your boat that is fine by me.

I don't want to burden you, but I am actually interested in what, exactly, in this piece you think is biased? Or is it simply that you will not, under any circumstances, read anything by HCR? Even I read Andrew McCarty man....

Nothing in this article in particular. I have read enough of the articles she has written to understand where she is coming from. You are better than me, I don't think I have ever read an article from Andrew McCarthy. Does anyone on this forum link to what he says? There are no shortages of articles on this forum from HCR.

Yeah, a few guys link to McCarthy (Old Salt, I think tech37 has in the past), who is a former federal prosecutor who writes for the National Review and a couple of other media publishers.

And I should add: I actually think Richardson is a very good writer, who marshals facts well into a good narrative. I (of course...) don't see her writing as biased; she has an historical perspective that is interesting and valuable. That she comes out sounding (your words) "extreme FLP" is odd to me and not what I'm hearing or reading.

[dislaxxic]

I see very little, if ANY, opinion in the HCR piece.

Let's start out by trying this...

Hey, Cradle! Did many of those people walk down to the Capitol from Trump's speech at the Ellipse on January 6th to attempt to "stop the steal"?

Simple question, right?

..

[cradleandshoot]

There are always questions, none of which will be answered by HCR.

I don't understand; exactly what do you find objectionable in the HCR piece posted by CU88? It is completely sound, heavy on facts of record and light on opinion. It's well written. What's your gripe? Or does the article not fit your preferred narrative?

We know why...

Sorry boys, I don't trust anything that HCR reports on.. you all trust her but I don't trust anybody that reports with an extreme FLP bias. If she floats your boat that is fine by me.

I don't want to burden you, but I am actually interested in what, exactly, in this piece you think is biased? Or is it simply that you will not, under any circumstances, read anything by HCR? Even I read Andrew McCarty man....

Nothing in this article in particular. I have read enough of the articles she has written to understand where she is coming from. You are better than me, I don't think I have ever read an article from Andrew McCarthy. Does anyone on this forum link to what he says? There are no shortages of articles on this forum from HCR.

Yeah, a few guys link to McCarthy (Old Salt, I think tech37 has in the past), who is a former federal prosecutor who writes for the National Review and a couple of other media publishers.

And I should add: I actually think Richardson is a very good writer, who marshals facts well into a good narrative. I (of course...) don't see her writing as biased; she has an historical perspective that is interesting and valuable. That she comes out sounding (your words) "extreme FLP" is odd to me and not what I'm hearing or reading.

I can only say that we all interpret other people's words differently. I don't like to intermingle threads but if you understand the anger and mistrust aimed at a man named. Dr Roy Spencer maybe it will become more clear to you? I'm more than happy to continue this discussion. How do we judge the opinions of anybody we disagree with?

[cradleandshoot]

I see very little, if ANY, opinion in the HCR piece.

Let's start out by trying this...

Hey, Cradle! Did many of those people walk down to the Capitol from Trump's speech at the Ellipse on January 6th to attempt to "stop the steal"?

Simple question, right?

..

I don't know what you are rambling on about Dis? Your blathering on about the attack on the capital. My opinion about how those people should have been dealt with is oblivious only to you. Maybe you need to pull your head out of your catnip patch... . You may be the forum poster child when defining the word simple.

[dislaxxic]

“ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA:” WHAT WE KNOW OF THE OATH KEEPERS’ JANUARY 6 QUICK REACTION FORCE

Meanwhile, in the real world, evidence continues to pile up that there were elements in and around DC that day that were ready to take up arms in the effort to "stop the steal"...

..

[dislaxxic]

I don't know what you are rambling on about Dis? Your blathering on about the attack on the capital. My opinion about how those people should have been dealt with is oblivious only to you. Maybe you need to pull your head out of your catnip patch...

Very simple Uncle Cranky...do you believe that many in the crowd that went to the Capitol on January 6th went there to "Stop the Steal".

Do you believe that is true or don't you?

..

[cradleandshoot]

“ONE IF BY LAND, TWO IF BY SEA:” WHAT WE KNOW OF THE OATH KEEPERS’ JANUARY 6 QUICK REACTION FORCE

Meanwhile, in the real world, evidence continues to pile up that there were elements in and around DC that day that were ready to take up arms in the effort to "stop the steal"...

..

To quote your girlfriend Hillary... What difference at this point in time does it matter... Dis, you need to go back and have another cup of Ovaltine. Your embarrassing yourself man.

[dislaxxic]

Maybe time for another holiday from posting Cradle? You're getting more incoherent and rambling again...

Why can't you answer my simple question about "Stopping the Steal"??

..

[Farfromgeneva]

July 6, 2021
Heather Cox Richardson
Jul 7

Six months ago today, rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, intending to stop the counting of the certified ballots that would make Joseph R. Biden president and Kamala Harris vice president. This attack was unprecedented. It broke our nation’s long history of the peaceful transfer of power.

You know the story of that day. Former president Donald Trump refused to accept the results of the 2020 presidential election, insisting that he had lost only because the election had been “stolen” from him, despite Biden’s decisive victory of more than 7 million votes and 74 electoral votes. He urged his supporters to stop Biden’s election from becoming official.

What has surprised me most in the six months since is how quickly the leaders of the Republican Party turned from establishing oligarchy—a process that the country has undergone in the past—to embracing authoritarianism, which it hasn’t.

Since 1986, Republican leaders have pushed policies that concentrate wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. In 1986, they began to talk of “voter integrity” measures that would cull Black voters from the rolls; by 1994, after the Democrats passed the Motor Voter Act allowing voter registration at state offices like the Registry of Motor Vehicles, Republicans began to say they were losing elections only because of “voter fraud.” Suppressing the vote became part of the Republican strategy for winning.

But voter suppression has a long history in America. Especially in the 1850s and the 1890s, political parties concerned about losing power cut their opponents out of the vote.

After the end of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, Republican leaders accepted the support of talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, who created a narrative in which Democrats were dangerous socialists, out to destroy home and family. With the establishment of the Fox News Channel in 1996, that narrative, shared not by reporters but by personalities behind sets meant to look like newsrooms, skewed reality for FNC viewers.

But promoting a false narrative through media is not new to the United States. Elite enslavers in the 1840s and 1850s similarly shaped what information their neighbors could hear.

In 2000, Republicans put into office George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 votes. The election came down to the state of Florida, where more than 100,000 voters had recently been removed from the voter rolls. A recount there stopped after a riot encouraged by Roger Stone, and the Supreme Court then decided in favor of Bush.

In 2016, Trump, too, lost the popular vote, but the distribution of those votes enabled him to win in the Electoral College.

But installing a president who has lost the popular vote is not new, either. In 1877 and 1889, presidents Rutherford B. Hayes and Benjamin Harrison both took office after losing the popular vote, Hayes by 250,000 votes, Harrison by more than 100,000.

In 2010, Republican leaders used Operation REDMAP (the Redistricting Majority Project) to win control of swing state legislatures and deliver the states to the Republicans by gerrymandering them. It worked. After the 2010 election, Republicans controlled the key states of Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Ohio, and Michigan, as well as other, smaller states, and they redrew congressional maps using precise computer models. In the 2012 election, Republicans received 1.4 million fewer votes for the House than Democrats did, but won a 33 seat majority.

Still, gerrymandering has been around for so long it’s named for early Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, whose name a journalist mixed with “salamander” in 1812.

Taken together, all these old tactics, amplified by modern technology, enabled the Republican leadership to lay the foundation for an oligarchy. Beginning in 1981, wealth began to move upward significantly, reversing the trend from 1933 to 1980, when wealth compressed. By 2017, lawmakers who had initially opposed Trump appeared to come around when he backed a huge corporate tax cut and put three originalists who endorsed the Republican vision of America on the Supreme Court.

Then Trump lost the 2020 election.

Before January 6, Republican lawmakers seemed to humor the outgoing president as he refused to accept the outcome. Trump and his people launched and lost more than 60 lawsuits over the election. They tried to pressure election officials in both Georgia and Arizona to change the outcome in those states. They refused to start the normal transition process that would enable Biden and Harris to set up their administration. And Republican lawmakers, trying to court Trump’s help in the Georgia Senate special runoff elections of January 5, kept their mouths shut.

And then January 6 happened. At a rally on Washington, D.C.’s Ellipse, Trump lied to his supporters again and again that the election had been stolen “by emboldened radical-left Democrats.” “We will never give up, we will never concede,” he told them. “You don't concede when there's theft involved.” He promised (falsely) that Vice President Mike Pence could send the ballots back to the states for recertification in his favor, “and we become president and you are the happiest people.”

“[W]e're going to have to fight much harder,” he said, “ecause you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated…. And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

“So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

In the ensuing crisis, lawmakers had to be rushed out of the chambers as rioters broke in. Five people died, and 140 police officers were injured. It could have been much worse: the insurrectionists erected a gallows for Pence. Nonetheless, even after the insurrection, 147 Republicans voted against certification of the electoral votes.

Still, at first, many Republican lawmakers appeared to condemn the events of January 6. But they quickly came around to defending the Big Lie that Trump won the election. That lie is behind the voter suppression measures enacted by a slew of Republican-dominated states, as well as the new measures in Arizona and Georgia that enable legislatures to have control over election results.

In the House, the Republicans removed Liz Cheney from a leadership position for her criticism of Trump and rejection of the Big Lie, replacing her with a Trump loyalist, tying House Republicans as a group to the former president. Republicans in the Senate came together to kill a bill to create a bipartisan, independent committee to investigate the events of January 6. Lawmakers and pundits are downplaying the insurrection itself, claiming either that it was not a big deal or that Democrats are using it to suppress rightwing activism.

And now, of the 700 Republicans who have filed paperwork to run for Congress next year, at least a third of them have backed the idea that Trump won the 2020 election.

In American history, the attempt to overturn our election procedures for one man, based on a lie, is unprecedented.

My bad, I almost started reading.Then I saw Heathers name attached. No need to waste my time reading any further.

Now you know how we feel around here.

[Farfromgeneva]

There are always questions, none of which will be answered by HCR.

Okay Cradle, you don’t trust HCR to deliver the truth. But surely you can comment on the piece above. What in her account do you take issue with? Much of what she’s laying out is supported by video shot on Jan. 6th. Heck, I witnessed most of it on live TV. At least I think I did, was I being deceived?

A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

[Farfromgeneva]

There are always questions, none of which will be answered by HCR.

I don't understand; exactly what do you find objectionable in the HCR piece posted by CU88? It is completely sound, heavy on facts of record and light on opinion. It's well written. What's your gripe? Or does the article not fit your preferred narrative?

We know why...

Sorry boys, I don't trust anything that HCR reports on.. you all trust her but I don't trust anybody that reports with an extreme FLP bias. If she floats your boat that is fine by me.

I don't want to burden you, but I am actually interested in what, exactly, in this piece you think is biased? Or is it simply that you will not, under any circumstances, read anything by HCR? Even I read Andrew McCarty man....

Nothing in this article in particular. I have read enough of the articles she has written to understand where she is coming from. You are better than me, I don't think I have ever read an article from Andrew McCarthy. Does anyone on this forum link to what he says? There are no shortages of articles on this forum from HCR.

Yeah, a few guys link to McCarthy (Old Salt, I think tech37 has in the past), who is a former federal prosecutor who writes for the National Review and a couple of other media publishers.

And I should add: I actually think Richardson is a very good writer, who marshals facts well into a good narrative. I (of course...) don't see her writing as biased; she has an historical perspective that is interesting and valuable. That she comes out sounding (your words) "extreme FLP" is odd to me and not what I'm hearing or reading.

He is more likely to believe Holman Jenkins is a supreme intellectual.

[Farfromgeneva]

Maybe time for another holiday from posting Cradle? You're getting more incoherent and rambling again...

Why can't you answer my simple question about "Stopping the Steal"??

..

All the anger is just fear. His fear of basically everything.
This means you won’t get a direct answer to a simple question.

[cradleandshoot]

Maybe time for another holiday from posting Cradle? You're getting more incoherent and rambling again...

Why can't you answer my simple question about "Stopping the Steal"??

..

I don't give a fluck about the steal. Your the one still tinkling in your big boy pants about it. You are clueless about what my solution was. Go back and axe some of your friends in this forum. They were not in favor at all of my solution. For the record, I plan on staying here if for no other reason to keep you on your toes.

If I didn't answer your question about the steal to your satisfaction... I believe Mr Garlands DOJ is taking care of the situation, in case you have not been paying attention to what is going on in the world

[dislaxxic]

yeah, i didn't think so...

Simple motivation. Donald Trump's supporters went to the capitol to insert themselves into a constitutional process...or they didn't.

Don't plan on combing thru posts to find your "solution"...whatever that was about.

What happened on January 6th doesn't require a "solution"...it requires owning up to the truth of what happened that day.

You gonna live a lie and base decisions..."solutions" on what happened?

...or aren't you...?

..

[MDlaxfan76]

yeah, i didn't think so...

Simple motivation. Donald Trump's supporters went to the capitol to insert themselves into a constitutional process...or they didn't.

Don't plan on combing thru posts to find your "solution"...whatever that was about.

What happened on January 6th doesn't require a "solution"...it requires owning up to the truth of what happened that day.

You gonna live a lie and base decisions..."solutions" on what happened?

...or aren't you...?

..

cradle is referring to his reaction that the Capitol Police should have shot some of the first violent protestors right away, and as many as necessary to deal with the mob...10,000 strong mob...in other words, the breach is the fault of the police for not responding more violently...

There's at least an argument that could be made that a much more deadly response by the Capitol Police would have prevented the breach of the building...might have worked, might not; but how many dead?

But he's using that as a shield to not answer the rest, nor deal with the ongoing threat.

[dislaxxic]

Thanks, MD...that sounds absolutely in line with where our surly friend would come down on what happened AFTER the mob arrived at the Capitol.

My question, of course, had to do with what motivation the crowd had as they marched on the Capitol building...which is what the Select Committee will be looking into, as opposed to how law enforcement is dealing with what happened once they reached their goal...

..

[ToastDunk]

yeah, i didn't think so...

Simple motivation. Donald Trump's supporters went to the capitol to insert themselves into a constitutional process...or they didn't.

Don't plan on combing thru posts to find your "solution"...whatever that was about.

What happened on January 6th doesn't require a "solution"...it requires owning up to the truth of what happened that day.

You gonna live a lie and base decisions..."solutions" on what happened?

...or aren't you...?

..

cradle is referring to his reaction that the Capitol Police should have shot some of the first violent protestors right away, and as many as necessary to deal with the mob...10,000 strong mob...in other words, the breach is the fault of the police for not responding more violently...

There's at least an argument that could be made that a much more deadly response by the Capitol Police would have prevented the breach of the building...might have worked, might not; but how many dead?

But he's using that as a shield to not answer the rest, nor deal with the ongoing threat.

https://www.pbs.org/video/insurrection- ... 623274386/
You all should watch the entire interview, very revealing in my opinion. This is a brave, smart, young man talking sense. But in regards to the above statement (which I think many would agree) tune in around 2:10 and you get an interesting perspective on manpower, life & death, and bullets. His statement around 3:50-3:55 sent chills up my spine.

[Brooklyn]

Conservatives post the name of Ashli Babbitt's alleged shooter on social media after Trump invokes Capitol rioter


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... =undefined


Ashli Babbitt died after she was shot during the Capitol riot on January 6.
Conservatives and far-right activists are posting the identity of the cop they say killed Babbitt.
The renewed online attention comes after Trump invoked Babbitt's name in an email to supporters.


Six months after the riot at the US Capitol, conservatives - encouraged by former President Donald Trump - are spamming social media with the alleged name of the police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt.

On Wednesday, multiple top posts on a fringe far-right message board called for "justice" for Babbitt and shared the alleged name of her shooter. One post, which was one of the site's most popular threads of the last 24 hours with more than 3,000 likes, called for the arrest of the officer.

One Twitter user shared the alleged name of Babbitt's shooter on Wednesday and questioned why he hasn't been "tried or arrested" yet, reaching 8,200 likes and nearly 3,000 retweets. It was not immediately clear whether this violated Twitter's Terms of Service. A Twitter representative did not immediately return a request for comment.

British talk show host Piers Morgan wrote an article for the DailyMail published Wednesday in which he claimed to know the identity of the shooter - though he did not reveal it - and said the name must be released to the public for the sake of "transparency," no matter whether you believe Babbitt was a "traitor or a patriot."

Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran with a history of sharing far-right conspiracy theories like QAnon online, was one of five people who died as a result of the riot in Washington. During the riot, an officer shot Babbitt in the left shoulder as she attempted to surge through a broken window and pass into the Capitol building, according to The New York Times.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to bring criminal charges against the officer after it found in an investigation that he did not violate Babbitt's rights. Insider is not sharing the name of the alleged officer, as it has not been verified.

"The investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber," the DOJ wrote in a statement.

Still, Babbitt has become a major symbol for the right, with Republicans including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia calling for "justice" for Babbitt's death in a speech on the House floor in May and Fox News host Tucker Carlson demanding to know who killed Babbitt in a June segment. As Talia Lavin reported for New York Magazine, Babbitt is now the "most visible" hero of the pro-Trump Capitol insurrectionists.

The renewed online attention comes after Trump invoked Babbitt's name in a four-word email to his supporters last Thursday: "Who killed Ashli Babbitt?" In a press conference on Wednesday, the former president again referenced Babbitt, falsely claiming that there "were no guns in the Capitol except the gun that shot Ashli Babbitt."

On Tuesday, the six-month anniversary of the Capitol riot, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona followed Trump by issuing a letter "in remembrance" of Babbitt.

In response to the renewed interest in Babbitt's death, many Twitter users criticized conservatives for treating the rioter like a martyr.

"Conservatives arguing that Ashli Babbitt was unjustly shot & demanding the name of the officer who killed her confirms that they believe the role of police is to murder Black people," the grassroots activist @BreeNewsome wrote on Twitter.










Traitor tRUMP promotes more treasonous violence. No surprise.

[MDlaxfan76]

yeah, i didn't think so...

Simple motivation. Donald Trump's supporters went to the capitol to insert themselves into a constitutional process...or they didn't.

Don't plan on combing thru posts to find your "solution"...whatever that was about.

What happened on January 6th doesn't require a "solution"...it requires owning up to the truth of what happened that day.

You gonna live a lie and base decisions..."solutions" on what happened?

...or aren't you...?

..

cradle is referring to his reaction that the Capitol Police should have shot some of the first violent protestors right away, and as many as necessary to deal with the mob...10,000 strong mob...in other words, the breach is the fault of the police for not responding more violently...

There's at least an argument that could be made that a much more deadly response by the Capitol Police would have prevented the breach of the building...might have worked, might not; but how many dead?

But he's using that as a shield to not answer the rest, nor deal with the ongoing threat.

https://www.pbs.org/video/insurrection- ... 623274386/
You all should watch the entire interview, very revealing in my opinion. This is a brave, smart, young man talking sense. But in regards to the above statement (which I think many would agree) tune in around 2:10 and you get an interesting perspective on manpower, life & death, and bullets. His statement around 3:50-3:55 sent chills up my spine.

And that's indeed why shooting the insurrectionists wouldn't have worked... "there aren't enough bullets"...so, they slowed them, fell back and barricaded again, multiple fall backs, enabling time for those they were protecting to be rescued.