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

[MDlaxfan76]

As for your disproportionate % had served:

Still, Pitcavage cautioned NPR that there is little evidence military veterans are more susceptible to extremist ideology than other groups of Americans.“Overall, our veteran population is largely reflective of our general population,” he said.

That’s true: because despite how many veterans have been arrested for storming the U.S. Capitol, there were also many fighting to keep them back. Their ranks include Air Force veteran and U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who was killed trying to hold back rioters from entering the building; Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) a former Army Ranger who helped his fellow lawmakers keep calm in the chaos; and Eugene Goodman, an Army veteran and Capitol Police Officer who lured a crowd of angry rioters away from the Senate chambers after they breached the Capitol building.

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-lif ... 20military.
Your percent is that of those who were arrested. Let's now go out into the entire crowd which includes a whole lot more who were not caught or arrested. What percent of that crowd is now ones who served? This is a bullschidt narrative which furthers the misconception that those who served are any more inclined to be violent and storm a Capitol Bldg than the rest of the general population.

We've had this discussion before and you keep miss-stating my point as more alarming than I intend. Which makes me feel like you are arguing against someone else, or some other "narrative", and I'm just the butt of your ire.

First, it's factual that those arrested disproportionately "served".

Second, it's far, far more likely that those arrested were those most easily identifiable as violent and/or actually went into the building than that DOJ/FBI found former military people more easily than non-military.

Third, because people who were not arrested are not identified we have no idea whether the rest of the mob was disproportionately "served" or not. Might be, might not be. We have no basis to say one way or the other.

Fourth, those not arrested, not identified, clearly were those who engaged in less of the violence, or none, and were far less likely to have been among those who went inside. Those who did act violently or went inside were much more likely to have been in the arrested, identified, and counted group.

Yes, we can hypothesize as to why there was this disproportionate relationship between those who were identified as violent or went inside, and "served", but we don't really know for sure...but I don't think we need to know for sure to recognize that some people who served, indeed disproportionately so, were among the vanguard fighting with the police, and so, identified and charged. Fact.

Let's be clear, the people who "served" and were arrested is a tiny percentage of those who have "served" in this country. They do not necessarily represent the bulk of former military or current military and there needn't be such an implication.

But there's a slice, whatever size, of former military who were (are) clearly attracted to the notion that direct action, even violent action, ostensibly under a "patriotic" banner, was appropriate. And that 'slice' is disproportionately larger than the overall representation of former military among American adults.

That slice doesn't implicate all those who have "served" and found Jan 6 abhorrent.

But it does suggest that there are likely others who have "served", upon looking at those banners waving, the crowd chanting, see "patriotism" rather than insurrection...despite the mix of Confederate banners, Trump banners, upside down American flags, the banners/signs/symbols of white nationalists, christian nationalists, etc and the violence directed at police, chants to hang the VP, calls to find the Speaker...

And that sentiment may well be disproportionately higher among those who have 'served' than the general pop.
I haven't seen polling on that demographic variable, but it certainly would not be a surprise.

Remember, 2/3 of Republicans still believe the Big Lie that underlay the Jan 6 insurrection.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

[cradleandshoot]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

[Farfromgeneva]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

So if my intention were to murder someone but I only cut them up and left them broken, bloodied with organ issues in the hospital it’s cool?

You have to come up with a better analogy than that. The intent that day was for the collective group of morons to have a march on the capital after their pep talk from trump. Even if your a bunch of right wing morons, you have every right to march in front of Congress and express your anger. That is of course a fundamental right all Americans have. What we are being told is that this was a part of scheme by the dumbest people in the Republican party to overturn an election. I believe that some of these morons thought they could make it happen. We all should be fortunate that is was a collective group of morons trying to achieve a result that didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. If a few disgruntled trump Republicans and a mob of a 1000 right wing morons have the power to overturn a US election then our nation has bigger problems than we could ever know.

No I don’t because your comment prior to my rebuttal is completely idiotic

[cradleandshoot]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

So if my intention were to murder someone but I only cut them up and left them broken, bloodied with organ issues in the hospital it’s cool?

You have to come up with a better analogy than that. The intent that day was for the collective group of morons to have a march on the capital after their pep talk from trump. Even if your a bunch of right wing morons, you have every right to march in front of Congress and express your anger. That is of course a fundamental right all Americans have. What we are being told is that this was a part of scheme by the dumbest people in the Republican party to overturn an election. I believe that some of these morons thought they could make it happen. We all should be fortunate that is was a collective group of morons trying to achieve a result that didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. If a few disgruntled trump Republicans and a mob of a 1000 right wing morons have the power to overturn a US election then our nation has bigger problems than we could ever know.

No I don’t because your comment prior to my rebuttal is completely idiotic

Defend your statement then. Why do you think my rebuttal is idiotic? You can compose many paragraphs enlightening us about your financial wisdom. I'm more than happy to read why you think my opinion is idiotic and then we can continue the conversation. What say you? It should be a cakewalk for you to do so. My bad, cakewalk is also a racist term...

[Typical Lax Dad]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

You mean again….you don’t read or care to learn. You have not followed the investigation.

[cradleandshoot]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

You mean again….you don’t read or care to learn. You have not followed the investigation.

I love learning new things. I'm smart enough to understand the horsechit being but forth by some teachers is the reason for cutting class. I'll cut your class all day long and be smarter for doing so. Maybe you should consider re-evaluating your curriculum?

[cradleandshoot]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

You mean again….you don’t read or care to learn. You have not followed the investigation.

FTR TLD I have wasted more time than I care to recall trying to follow the investigation that morphed into an inquisition. Why wasn't Speaker Pelosi asked to testify about her decision to not increase security at the Capital building on January 6?? That does not excuse the actions of those morons on January 6. It should make a reasonable person ask why nothing was done to provide extra security around the capital with the knowledge there would be a massive protest that would wind up eventually at the capital? Unless of course your opinion is nobody in charge of security at the capital that day had any idea there would be a protest of disgruntled Republicans that intended all along to take their protest to the capital steps. I believe we have a fellow poster who had a close relative in the protest that day. I also believe his relative was not aware of where the protest march was heading. Useful idiots is I believe the term that Lenin used.

[Typical Lax Dad]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

You mean again….you don’t read or care to learn. You have not followed the investigation.

FTR TLD I have wasted more time than I care to recall trying to follow the investigation that morphed into an inquisition. Why wasn't Speaker Pelosi asked to testify about her decision to not increase security at the Capital building on January 6?? That does not excuse the actions of those morons on January 6. It should make a reasonable person ask why nothing was done to provide extra security around the capital with the knowledge there would be a massive protest that would wind up eventually at the capital? Unless of course your opinion is nobody in charge of security at the capital that day had any idea there would be a protest of disgruntled Republicans that intended all along to take their protest to the capital steps. I believe we have a fellow poster who had a close relative in the protest that day. I also believe his relative was not aware of where the protest march was heading. Useful idiots is I believe the term that Lenin used.

Maybe your new Congress will investigate Pelosi and the Mayor’s decision. They may have been in on it.

[MDlaxfan76]

But let's not pretend that the GOP, led by Trump, hasn't become dominated by the white nationalist, christian nationalist movement to tremendously ill effect. Election denialism has become a tool for this cult. And two-thirds of the GOP are on board...that ain't "all" but it's domination.

I don't think Trump is the sole problem, I think all the weasels who have bowed before him are fully complicit.

imho -- you are exaggerating any ill effect & misrepresenting the patriotism of millions of white christians.

As a white christian I can agree there are many of us who are fulsomely patriotic. and sure, there are millions like me.

But I ain't a christian nationalist nor a white nationalist, nor the overlap.
And I'm not an election denier, nor am I going to make up, repeat, support stupidly false arguments about voting insecurity.

I think all of that is gross and immensely damaging to the country I love.
And millions of white christians, like me, agree.

But we're not the MAGA cult.

That is one more place they apply the "wedge". It creates all sorts of points of fissure:

First, let's note that there are a lot of very good and reasonable people who are a) white, b) Christian, and c) love their nation.

Let's also acknowledge that there are (abhorrent) people who are "white nationalists" in the way that the left uses the term. Hateful bigots who promote an agenda based on race separation. I believe that these people represent a very, very small percentage of Americans, but I think there are more now than there were 20 years ago for a few reasons.

There are politicians on both sides of the aisle who benefit from racism. The ones who appeal to the bigots I described above and the ones who run around calling white men racists like a spurned pilgrim wife looking for witches in every woman that attracts her husband's eye.

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur? According to the New Oxford American dictionary nationalist means: i) a person who advocates political independence for a country; b) a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others. Seems pretty benign.

Undermining the meaning of words is a game marxists and post-modernists love to play as a way of chipping away at the foundation of society. It is done on purpose. The definition of nationalist generally strikes me as including good things - as long as the feelings of superiority don't become unreasonably aggressive - and this is where/how the post-modernists get you. If nationalism includes feelings of superiority, that could lead to wars, and everyone knows war is bad so nationalism must be bad. This is the self-flagellation that Europe has put itself through after two world wars. Rather than recognizing mankind's tendency toward violence and admitting to the need to harness those tendencies - Europe blames religion and nations - because surely if there neither existed there would be peace on Earth (give me a break). But on those types of premises, and slowly, through the manipulation of language, the post-modernists undermine the very things that tie our culture together.

The question is to what end?

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

Only 2 of the 5 Oath Keepers charged with Seditious Conspiracy were convicted.
What a disappointment for the most dangerous conspiracy in the history of our nation.
Better nail more Proud Boys than that.
What about the Willard war council ?

The rest got multiple convictions for obstruction and will serve serious time. The case for the Proud Boys is actually better and they will get theirs as well. Tarrio has already flipped to save his own sorry rump. There will be more flippers before this is over.

I just don't get your penchant for giving all these people a pass and to be so glib about what they were doing leading up to and during January 6. The point was to overturn a legitimate election and peaceful transfer of power. Even your pals at the WSJ don't share this view.
Is this what you served for?

The pathetic and honest truth about Jan.6 is not all that difficult to understand. A group of people on this forum caterwaul endlessly about intent while overlooking the ability to follow through with said intent. Who out there actually wants to raise your hand and declare these people would ever reach their objective? This was a collective group of right wing parasites who had a hissy fit for a few hours and vandalized and disgraced our nations capital. There was NO PLAN that day that ever actually threatened the peaceful transition of power. Had there actually been a PLAN a few thousand of those people that broke into the capital that day would have been heavily armed and dedicated to the cause. Then you folks would have a legitimate gripe. You folks think it was bad? How many of you folks can comprehend just how BAD it could have been?? What if a thousand or more of these folks had been armed to the teeth and willing to die for their cause?? What do you folks think would have happened if law enforcement was eventually forced to take back the capital by force? You all should thank your lucky stars that there was no PLAN on January 6. It was an embarrassment that should have never happened. IMO and I have been consistent with this since day one. The capital police had NO excuse for not being prepared. Their response to this riot is also a point of interest the January 6 committee should also be taking a very close look at. Who was in charge of security at the US Capital?? They had fair knowledge and were forewarned of an expected protest march to the capital. The obvious question that will explode a few heads on this forum.. why wasn't Nancy Pelosi required to testify about HER decision not to add extra security at the capital knowing a large protest was likely headed there? I don't say that to blame her for anything. It would be nice for her to explain her thought process for not authorizing extra security just as a precaution. The theory I have read is that Ms Pelosi had serious reservations about the optics of thousands of extra security personally surrounding the capital.

To open up another hypersensitive topic with some forum members... Ain't that the same sort of logic a former SoS used for keeping a bare bones security detail to protect a US ambassador stationed in one of most dangerous countries in the world at that time?? Optics is the new operative word we should all look at and understand its subtle meaning. It's how other countries judge us by what they see on TV. Dozens of security people surrounding a building used to support a US embassy in a foreign country just simply looks bad. Thousands of security people surrounding the US Capital also looks very bad on the nightly news.

Amazing. So the stupid bank robbers who could not pull off the heist despite having a plan to rob the bank are not chargeable or guilty of trying to rob the bank??????????? and we shouldn't look any further to see who else might have been in on the plan?

Quack! Quack! It's an effing duck!

dumb and dumber

So here we go again. Law enforcement was made well aware of a potential security threat that might involve a large protest at the US Capital by a bunch of disgruntled Republican sore losers. How often does law enforcement get a day or 2 prior notice to the crooks trying to knock off the bank?

Ignorant and Ignorant-er.

Your being way too harsh on yourself. Your not ignorant.. your just dumb...

I know you are but what am I?…..

What's next here?? Hopscotch??? Jax??? If you think I'm really ignorant defend your reasoning. I already have a response ready. When you toss around insults and personal attacks at least have the integrity to explain your intolerance. You have a doctorate after all, composing words and forming them into a sentence should be child's play for you. Unless you prefer mindless video clips to speak for you?

Hell yes!! Hopscotch baby!

You think I'm going to waste 7 minutes and 18 seconds watching that video? What say YOU about the issue bunny rabbit???

You mean again….you don’t read or care to learn. You have not followed the investigation.

FTR TLD I have wasted more time than I care to recall trying to follow the investigation that morphed into an inquisition. Why wasn't Speaker Pelosi asked to testify about her decision to not increase security at the Capital building on January 6?? That does not excuse the actions of those morons on January 6. It should make a reasonable person ask why nothing was done to provide extra security around the capital with the knowledge there would be a massive protest that would wind up eventually at the capital? Unless of course your opinion is nobody in charge of security at the capital that day had any idea there would be a protest of disgruntled Republicans that intended all along to take their protest to the capital steps. I believe we have a fellow poster who had a close relative in the protest that day. I also believe his relative was not aware of where the protest march was heading. Useful idiots is I believe the term that Lenin used.

Maybe your new Congress will investigate Pelosi and the Mayor’s decision. They may have been in on it.

Cradle,
There were separate hearings on the security measures, what was known and not known by various people, what should have been communicated, what should have been heard as credible and yet was dismissed...and no one testified that Pelosi or Schumer in any way were made aware of the danger and made a decision to not increase security (as if it was their call in the first place, which it was not).

So, this is the 'bullshidt' of your question.

Yes, my brother-in-law was at the Capitol...he was late to the speeches, tried to find a bathroom, late to the steps, but made it to the steps...yes, he had no idea that the crowd was going to be violent, claims that he himself did not observe the violence...but he was nevertheless part of the mob that provided the cover for those who were actually prepared for and spoiling for a fight, actually intended to obstruct the proceedings...

yes, many were useful idiots...the much more serious criminals were those orchestrating it all. Peddling the Big Lie, pretending that there really was a way to keep Trump in power and that it was "patriotic" to do so.

Sedition. Insurrection.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Does Cradleandshoot or anyone else know what has become of this?

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/232745 ... -january-6

[Seacoaster(1)]

Does Cradleandshoot or anyone else know what has become of this?

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/232745 ... -january-6

The Committee subpoenaed the USSS in July, I think, and has spoken a few times with Ornato about it. Because these are messages deleted by a service perceived to be supporting Trump, no hue and cry from the GOP. But, you know, Hillary and Hunter....

[HooDat]

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

They broke the law - the answer is easy, put them in jail where they belong.

Did you think I would give a different answer?

what makes me quite happy is that in the end we had a (relatively*) peaceful transition of power and those morons got what was coming - providing proof of the vibrancy of our electoral process.

* while the "protest" was not particularly peaceful, the success of the peaceful transition of power within our multi-branch style of government was never in doubt to anyone immune to the hysteria of either ProudBoy Bravado or left-wing fainting spells....

[Typical Lax Dad]

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

They broke the law - the answer is easy, put them in jail where they belong.

Did you think I would give a different answer?

what makes me quite happy is that in the end we had a (relatively*) peaceful transition of power and those morons got what was coming - providing proof of the vibrancy of our electoral process.

* while the "protest" was not particularly peaceful, the success of the peaceful transition of power within our multi-branch style of government was never in doubt to anyone immune to the hysteria of either ProudBoy Bravado or left-wing fainting spells....

There was no executive branch attempt to not transfer power? No effort? January 6th was just unhappy peasants?

[HooDat]

First, you seem to get my point that I'm white, christian and patriotic. Yup, millions like me.

But I ain't a white nationalist (a form of ethnic or racially based national identity) nor a christian nationalist (a form of religiously based national identity). Nor the overlap.

Unfortunately, neither of these types of nationalists in America today are small groups. Yes, extremists with tattoos or speaking in tongues or whatever are relatively small, but these ideologies are indeed mainstreamed today in the GOP and fostered daily in right wing media.

It's a serious problem, as these are inherently anti-American ideologies.

This is not a wedge, it's a plea to reject these forms of bigotry wrapped in faux patriotism.

Your response makes me realize that I never did make my intended point in response to you!

There are groups of conservative leaning voters that make the same statement you make in the beginning of the quote above. They know that they are not "White Nationalists" or "Christian Nationalists" - they are white and a nationalist and a Christian. They also know, or believe, that they are not racist. They then hear the "other" side calling them racist or unenlightened and they dig their heels in.

My point relative to your original post was (supposed to be) that the type of accusatory discourse that our politics have devolved into is not productive. The words one side uses to inflame their base or cast aspersions on the other side often has the effect of making the rift wider - a wedge..... In the specific example of white nationalism or white Christians, politicians lead the voter I describe down the path of parsing the words into bits that allow the voter to either ignore the existence of the White Nationalists that the politician in question may actually be courting or even think he/she sympathizes with them.

[HooDat]

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

They broke the law - the answer is easy, put them in jail where they belong.

Did you think I would give a different answer?

what makes me quite happy is that in the end we had a (relatively*) peaceful transition of power and those morons got what was coming - providing proof of the vibrancy of our electoral process.

* while the "protest" was not particularly peaceful, the success of the peaceful transition of power within our multi-branch style of government was never in doubt to anyone immune to the hysteria of either ProudBoy Bravado or left-wing fainting spells....

There was no executive branch attempt to not transfer power? No effort? January 6th was just unhappy peasants?

You make my point. Even if we end up finding out that Trump tried to send an armed private army into the Capital Building to kill off Pelosi and Pence, the bottom line is - he failed. The system worked as intended. Power was transferred to the winner of the election. I am not saying no harm no foul. I am saying that the SYSTEM worked.

Any sane person understands that at no point were we in danger of Trump succeeding in over-turning the election results.

[HooDat]

But think about why the term nationalist is now being used as a slur?

Simple!

Because it's not real. It's not actually doing a thing to put Americans first. Or anything to take working American into the 21st century.

It's a bunch of culture war nonsense that does nothing but line the pockets of the liberal elite that these cats pretend to be against.

You have liberal friends, HooDat? How much richer were they before and then after Trump?

Now picture the average TrumpNation working man. How are they doing? How's inflation treating them? And what are these "nationalists" plans to help them?

Nationalist is nonsense. That's why it's used as a slur, my man.

I think I completely get your point. But remember you should never underestimate the stupidity of the average voter. They get lied to because it works.

But, that assumes you mean nationalist is being used by a slur in the same vein as deplorable. A code word for a certain kind of person not welcome at Upper West Side cocktail parties, LA film premiers or in faculty lounges?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

They broke the law - the answer is easy, put them in jail where they belong.

Did you think I would give a different answer?

what makes me quite happy is that in the end we had a (relatively*) peaceful transition of power and those morons got what was coming - providing proof of the vibrancy of our electoral process.

* while the "protest" was not particularly peaceful, the success of the peaceful transition of power within our multi-branch style of government was never in doubt to anyone immune to the hysteria of either ProudBoy Bravado or left-wing fainting spells....

There was no executive branch attempt to not transfer power? No effort? January 6th was just unhappy peasants?

You make my point. Even if we end up finding out that Trump tried to send an armed private army into the Capital Building to kill off Pelosi and Pence, the bottom line is - he failed. The system worked as intended. Power was transferred to the winner of the election. I am not saying no harm no foul. I am saying that the SYSTEM worked.

Any sane person understands that at no point were we in danger of Trump succeeding in over-turning the election results.

It failed because of basically two people with a conscience….not because our system has integrity. It’s a weakness in our system that was attempted to be exploited. You seem to have tuned it out like a lot of people.

[SCLaxAttack]

Would be interested in your view of the alleged "patriots" who were convicted in DC court today for seditious conspiracy and obstruction of a federal proceeding? Nothing major, just the certification of a presidential election and a peaceful transfer of power. Lenin (the ultimate marxist) would be spinning in his grave if he wasn't uber-embalmed and on display in glass to this very day at the Kremlin.

They broke the law - the answer is easy, put them in jail where they belong.

Did you think I would give a different answer?

what makes me quite happy is that in the end we had a (relatively*) peaceful transition of power and those morons got what was coming - providing proof of the vibrancy of our electoral process.

* while the "protest" was not particularly peaceful, the success of the peaceful transition of power within our multi-branch style of government was never in doubt to anyone immune to the hysteria of either ProudBoy Bravado or left-wing fainting spells....

There was no executive branch attempt to not transfer power? No effort? January 6th was just unhappy peasants?

You make my point. Even if we end up finding out that Trump tried to send an armed private army into the Capital Building to kill off Pelosi and Pence, the bottom line is - he failed. The system worked as intended. Power was transferred to the winner of the election. I am not saying no harm no foul. I am saying that the SYSTEM worked.

Any sane person understands that at no point were we in danger of Trump succeeding in over-turning the election results.

I must be insane. Evidently so were the Joint Chiefs, so I'm in good company.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... -riot.html

[a fan]

But, that assumes you mean nationalist is being used by a slur in the same vein as deplorable. A code word for a certain kind of person not welcome at Upper West Side cocktail parties, LA film premiers or in faculty lounges?

I'm not privy to Upper West Side Cocktail parties.....I just make their spirits.

Nationalist means: you buy the BS of the your party leader, and NEVER bother to see if he's lying to you, and assume everyone but your party leader is lying to you. THAT is what Nationalism is in a nutshell.

It's why Nationalists hate, for example, of all people, Fauci.....but love Trump. THAT is a nationalist.

Have you notice that no one here is a Biden fan? No one here thinks Biden is always right, never lies, and is the be all end all for information?

So Petey and his love affair with DeSantis....and not bothering to read bills DeSantis passed, and instead recites what DeSantis and "other people" tell him is in the bills? Yet I did, and pointed out that the bill is hilariously NOTHING like he's been told?

THAT is Nationalism.