|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 21, 2021 7:55:33 GMT -8
What is it you want talked about? The links you provided weren’t some obscure news source, or are you suggesting there should have been more clamor(at the time) than what you’re finding online currently? I think the differences here are the location in the first instance was outside the Supreme Court building, and not the Capital itself. The police were able to effectively control the crowd and made arrests at the time. There was no breech of the building, and none of the destructive vandalism(that I recall). The second protest was at a Senate office building(I think there’s 3 or 4 at least) that contains Senate Committee offices, some random number of Senator’s DC offices(I don’t know how many, there’s a few buildings different Senators use), and the protestors were in an area inside the building that is open to the public. Again, the protestors were contained, and not storming through the halls potentially endangering those working inside. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your question, but I’m interested in your getting a reasonable answer. I think barry has sort of covered what I was leaning towards. We've seen it throughout the entire pandemic, where activists (and apparently there were a record 27MIL people protesting during the Floyd protests) who were basically given a free pass to riot during a pandemic. As I said earlier, in the Watercooler thread people like namisgr were either downplaying the seriousness or Jaybuck were actually giving them a free pass while at the same time hypocritically speaking out against people who didn't follow social isolation measures. I posted the Kavanaugh protests because these rioters also broke police barricades and while 300 people were arrested it's not even being mentioned in the news when the 'insurrection' is being talked about. There is a very distinct double standard about protests and it seems that if they are in favor of the Democrats (and the media like CNN / Google / Facebook / Twitter) that they are either downplayed or given a pass. But if they're Republican protests they over-covered and exaggerated. Was the protest at the Capital an insurrection? I'm not so sure. Maybe.
But now the Republican protesters are being labelled as terrorists on CNN. This is a serious thing. You have one side with all the media in their back pocket....this is fascist in the purest sense of the word...and now they are convincing the general public that the 'other party' is bad, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc.
This is not going in a very good direction and certainly not the direction of unity.
Especially when it's important to consider that one of the main reasons Trump ever even GOT into power was because Democrats created that vacuum after years of terrible leaders and lies.
You are an embarrassment to all Canadians  |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 21, 2021 8:32:22 GMT -8
i have stated i don't care about the party affiliation blame game. it is a useless exercise, and since the beginning of organized government, affiliation identification has been used as a control and punishment tool and a useful (to the controlling political party) method of division and distraction. steve makes valid points, but the emphasis concerning what to talk about does not do justice to the underlying issue.....the continuance of a federal republic that all persons that benefit from a federal republic do so because of the rule of law established by the federal republic. when any party affiliation fails to act to provide the benefit of same, then the federal republic has failed. when the party...any party....that is charged with the duty of ensuring the stated benefit fails to do so, it leads to divisiveness, anarchy, distrust and violence and destruction. so, after that silly comment, please explain portland. please explain...reasonably.....why our federal republic failed the people so miserably. party affiliation? no. the latest violence was directed toward a democratic target. antifa ....remember now, antifa was treated as a "myth".... a construct by one party to hide the "guilt" of that party, and dismissed by the other party as peaceful protesting that was interrupted by the "myth" members that really belonged to the other party. yet antifa was identified by the judicial branch, some years ago, and the legislative and executive branches were so informed. instead of our 3 branches working together within the law of our federal republic, a convenient football was created. here we are, 7 years later, with 2.5 billion dollars of destruction, 134 deaths and 563 injuries, and the football just got thrown back to the other party with a haha note. i call bull  . steve, that is the issue, not what party is responsible, or what party did or did not cause the violence and death and injury and economic harm...for the last 7 years.....but, what is my federal republic going to do to preserve my federal republic? |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 21, 2021 9:20:04 GMT -8
@wilbil
Gotta agree. Rule of law is the rule of law and it shouldn't have any bias.
This is a fantastic non-partisan discussion if anyone is interested in listening to it. It's about 1.5 hours long but packed with great discussion into what is happening, why it's happening and how to get out of it.
How Do We Save America? Live with Bret Weinstein
Gosh, I love being able to talk politics without a looming ban hammer.  |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 21, 2021 9:31:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 21, 2021 9:32:27 GMT -8
@wilbil
Gotta agree. Rule of law is the rule of law and it shouldn't have any bias.
This is a fantastic non-partisan discussion if anyone is interested in listening to it. It's about 1.5 hours long but packed with great discussion into what is happening, why it's happening and how to get out of it.
How Do We Save America? Live with Bret Weinstein
Gosh, I love being able to talk politics without a looming ban hammer. You need to get a life or a hobby or a real job. You have way too much free time to discuss your whackjob conspiracy theories. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 21, 2021 10:37:02 GMT -8
I'm not clicking a link that's called B!tch Ute  |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 11:38:42 GMT -8
I think barry has sort of covered what I was leaning towards. We've seen it throughout the entire pandemic, where activists (and apparently there were a record 27MIL people protesting during the Floyd protests) who were basically given a free pass to riot during a pandemic. As I said earlier, in the Watercooler thread people like namisgr were either downplaying the seriousness or Jaybuck were actually giving them a free pass while at the same time hypocritically speaking out against people who didn't follow social isolation measures. I posted the Kavanaugh protests because these rioters also broke police barricades and while 300 people were arrested it's not even being mentioned in the news when the 'insurrection' is being talked about. There is a very distinct double standard about protests and it seems that if they are in favor of the Democrats (and the media like CNN / Google / Facebook / Twitter) that they are either downplayed or given a pass. But if they're Republican protests they over-covered and exaggerated. Was the protest at the Capital an insurrection? I'm not so sure. Maybe.
But now the Republican protesters are being labelled as terrorists on CNN. This is a serious thing. You have one side with all the media in their back pocket....this is fascist in the purest sense of the word...and now they are convincing the general public that the 'other party' is bad, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc.
This is not going in a very good direction and certainly not the direction of unity.
Especially when it's important to consider that one of the main reasons Trump ever even GOT into power was because Democrats created that vacuum after years of terrible leaders and lies.
Not to belabor this, but I think if the Kavanaugh protests(or similar) were to happen next week, we’d maybe see a different amount and type of coverage. When those protests happened we (or the media) were in the midst of “Me, Too” and Mr. Kavanaugh and his court appointment were a huge target of that movement, so there were likely many more people(even if quietly so) sympathetic to the protestors than the appointment being a strictly partisan issue. I don’t get the sense that the 75 million folks who voted for Pres. Trump we’re necessarily sympathetic with the protestors on Jan 6. in that same fashion. Also I’d make the distinction between attempting to turnover an election and rejecting or stopping a Supreme Court appointment. I guess I just don’t see the two events as all that similar or worthy of equal attention. Maybe that’s my bias talking, but I hope not. I really try to be open and objective where I can. I do think there was a double standard from a pandemic standpoint between the George Floyd protestors and the sorts of social gatherings some in the WC gave a pass to. Maybe this goes to the heart of the type of gathering though? The passion and resolve of the Floyd protestors being what it was vs. people wanting to gather on a beach or watch a baseball game, etc. Whether right or wrong, the Floyd protestors put their cause ahead of all else, really a basic rights issue that may historically come to pass as being a major turning point for fairness and equality for all Citizens. If social distancing protocols had to be broken, I’d sooner forgive the George Floyd protestors than folks gathering for Spring Break. To the last comment, “one of the main reasons Trump ever even GOT into power was because Democrats created that vacuum after years of terrible leaders and lies”, I’d say there was a vacuum on both sides, and don’t discount how the Democratic vote was split due to Bernie Sanders, or how weak or ineffective many potential(or perennial) Republican candidates appeared compared to the new flavor of Trump, who politically really did come out of nowhere using his current Celebrity and business dealings to vault him to the nomination for President. |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 12:02:57 GMT -8
i have stated i don't care about the party affiliation blame game. it is a useless exercise, and since the beginning of organized government, affiliation identification has been used as a control and punishment tool and a useful (to the controlling political party) method of division and distraction. steve makes valid points, but the emphasis concerning what to talk about does not do justice to the underlying issue..... so, after that silly comment, please explain portland... *snip* steve, that is the issue, not what party is responsible, or what party did or did not cause the violence and death and injury and economic harm...for the last 7 years.....but, what is my federal republic going to do to preserve my federal republic? I wasn’t aware the question for me was to address any underlying issue. “What to talk about” was my being curious what Vintage expected to see/read re: the events from two years ago. Not sure I understand the last part about “responsible party” either. I wasn’t trying to point fingers regarding the Kavanaugh protests, but just clarify what I understood and offer that to Vintage. Anyhoo, your last remark reminded me of a statement made by Pres. Reagan that I’d forgotten about, but really like. “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.” I excluded the remainder as he goes on to blame the Democratic administration in charge at the time, but I like the first part, standing alone. |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 12:18:01 GMT -8
The music made it difficult to hear everything, but I’m sure if a MAGA group wanted to hold a “disco” on BLM plaza they certainly could. Also, her comment about 25,000 National Guard troops made little sense. I suspect any group/organization that had numbers in the thousands(or more) that were vocal in potentially wreaking havoc on the inauguration event they would be equally deterred by police, etc. Please let me know if I missed something she said. Again, the beginning was particularly muddled for me. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Jan 21, 2021 12:40:05 GMT -8
I think barry has sort of covered what I was leaning towards. We've seen it throughout the entire pandemic, where activists (and apparently there were a record 27MIL people protesting during the Floyd protests) who were basically given a free pass to riot during a pandemic. As I said earlier, in the Watercooler thread people like namisgr were either downplaying the seriousness or Jaybuck were actually giving them a free pass while at the same time hypocritically speaking out against people who didn't follow social isolation measures. I posted the Kavanaugh protests because these rioters also broke police barricades and while 300 people were arrested it's not even being mentioned in the news when the 'insurrection' is being talked about. There is a very distinct double standard about protests and it seems that if they are in favor of the Democrats (and the media like CNN / Google / Facebook / Twitter) that they are either downplayed or given a pass. But if they're Republican protests they over-covered and exaggerated. Was the protest at the Capital an insurrection? I'm not so sure. Maybe.
But now the Republican protesters are being labelled as terrorists on CNN. This is a serious thing. You have one side with all the media in their back pocket....this is fascist in the purest sense of the word...and now they are convincing the general public that the 'other party' is bad, terrorists, insurrectionists, etc.
This is not going in a very good direction and certainly not the direction of unity.
Especially when it's important to consider that one of the main reasons Trump ever even GOT into power was because Democrats created that vacuum after years of terrible leaders and lies.
Not to belabor this, but I think if the Kavanaugh protests(or similar) were to happen next week, we’d maybe see a different amount and type of coverage. When those protests happened we (or the media) were in the midst of “Me, Too” and Mr. Kavanaugh and his court appointment were a huge target of that movement, so there were likely many more people(even if quietly so) sympathetic to the protestors than the appointment being a strictly partisan issue. I don’t get the sense that the 75 million folks who voted for Pres. Trump we’re necessarily sympathetic with the protestors on Jan 6. in that same fashion. Also I’d make the distinction between attempting to turnover an election and rejecting or stopping a Supreme Court appointment. I guess I just don’t see the two events as all that similar or worthy of equal attention. Maybe that’s my bias talking, but I hope not. I really try to be open and objective where I can. B) I do think there was a double standard from a pandemic standpoint between the George Floyd protestors and the sorts of social gatherings some in the WC gave a pass to. Maybe this goes to the heart of the type of gathering though? The passion and resolve of the Floyd protestors being what it was vs. people wanting to gather on a beach or watch a baseball game, etc. Whether right or wrong, the Floyd protestors put their cause ahead of all else, really a basic rights issue that may historically come to pass as being a major turning point for fairness and equality for all Citizens. If social distancing protocols had to be broken, I’d sooner forgive the George Floyd protestors than folks gathering for Spring Break. C) To the last comment, “one of the main reasons Trump ever even GOT into power was because Democrats created that vacuum after years of terrible leaders and lies”, I’d say there was a vacuum on both sides, and don’t discount how the Democratic vote was split due to Bernie Sanders, or how weak or ineffective many potential(or perennial) Republican candidates appeared compared to the new flavor of Trump, who politically really did come out of nowhere using his current Celebrity and business dealings to vault him to the nomination for President.
A) I think the point is that no matter what was being protested, because the majority of the media is left swinging, any right side protest would be covered negatively and left sided protests favorably.
All of the biggest media corporations (CNN / Twitter / Google / Facebook) are favorable to the left and are more interested in popularity than facts so they are all swinging left because it's fashionable to be a rights fighter - even if it doesn't make sense logically, scientifically or any other way. Emotional appeals garner way more profits.
You don't see that happening even now?
B) I'm not saying there was a problem with the protests. I'm all for freedoms to protest but there was absolutely a double standard because they turned a blind eye to Covid spread due to BLM protests but they continue to come down hard on other rights that people are forfeiting, like their freedom to associate, to run their businesses and run their lives without the interference of others.
It's a double standard. Do you see that?
C) I fully agree. BOTH sides are consolidating followers and created an ever growing divide between the two. This creates more volatility and each term brings more anger and angst.
We just happened to live through an unprecedented watershed moment where Trump came out of nowhere, aligned forces with a group of people who had very little voice (authoritarians in particular liked his leadership but there are others) and rebelled against an 8 year administration that did very little for the people, relatively speaking.
|
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Jan 21, 2021 12:49:32 GMT -8
i have stated i don't care about the party affiliation blame game. it is a useless exercise, and since the beginning of organized government, affiliation identification has been used as a control and punishment tool and a useful (to the controlling political party) method of division and distraction. steve makes valid points, but the emphasis concerning what to talk about does not do justice to the underlying issue..... so, after that silly comment, please explain portland... *snip* steve, that is the issue, not what party is responsible, or what party did or did not cause the violence and death and injury and economic harm...for the last 7 years.....but, what is my federal republic going to do to preserve my federal republic? I wasn’t aware the question for me was to address any underlying issue. “What to talk about” was my being curious what Vintage expected to see/read re: the events from two years ago. Not sure I understand the last part about “responsible party” either. I wasn’t trying to point fingers regarding the Kavanaugh protests, but just clarify what I understood and offer that to Vintage. Anyhoo, your last remark reminded me of a statement made by Pres. Reagan that I’d forgotten about, but really like. “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.” I excluded the remainder as he goes on to blame the Democratic administration in charge at the time, but I like the first part, standing alone. it is a statement of generality for discussion, and to introduce an opinion built on observation and as a member of a federal republic. i don't care who answers and states an opinion, that discusses the problems. if all that i stated is interpreted as needing you personally to address the underlying issue, and causing a slight defensiveness by response, then it is no longer a discussion, but a dismissal of opinion. you exclude the remainder, and interpret the statements as blame of the democratic administration in charge at the time. how you arrive at that conclusion, is exactly why discussions change from discussions to dismissal of discussion. no, i did not state any such correlation. i idid not say it was a democrat party or a republican party. you have assumed, i think, with a slight bent toward bias. we all do it, but the very basic building block of a discussion is to understand what is stated, and not assume, and if not understood, ask questions. you did not understand, interpreted incorrectly, and did not ask what is meant. i think you may have assumed, by my use of the word "democratic", that i was referring to a party affiliation. i will clarify, with the goal of understanding: democratic means the taret was an assault on the people. i don't know what is confusing or hard to understand what is meant by responsible party, unless the entire statement was ignored as to meaning. party...any party. party affiliation. affiliation identification. controlling party. not what party is responsible. these are the statements i made. they are clear. i truly hope you are not trying to insinuate a preference in my thoughts for a republican or a democrat. if you are, then you definitely have not understood any post i have made on the subject, in any thread. it does not really matter what a person likes or dislikes in a statement. that is not discussion. that is judgement and dismissal and somewhat biassed. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Jan 21, 2021 14:03:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 15:48:22 GMT -8
A) I think the point is that no matter what was being protested, because the majority of the media is left swinging, any right side protest would be covered negatively and left sided protests favorably.
All of the biggest media corporations (CNN / Twitter / Google / Facebook) are favorable to the left and are more interested in popularity than facts so they are all swinging left because it's fashionable to be a rights fighter - even if it doesn't make sense logically, scientifically or any other way. Emotional appeals garner way more profits.
You don't see that happening even now?
B) I'm not saying there was a problem with the protests. I'm all for freedoms to protest but there was absolutely a double standard because they turned a blind eye to Covid spread due to BLM protests but they continue to come down hard on other rights that people are forfeiting, like their freedom to associate, to run their businesses and run their lives without the interference of others.
It's a double standard. Do you see that?
C) I fully agree. BOTH sides are consolidating followers and created an ever growing divide between the two. This creates more volatility and each term brings more anger and angst.
We just happened to live through an unprecedented watershed moment where Trump came out of nowhere, aligned forces with a group of people who had very little voice (authoritarians in particular liked his leadership but there are others) and rebelled against an 8 year administration that did very little for the people, relatively speaking.
A) I don’t believe I disagree that it’s happening, that the most viewed or discussed(most popular?) news outlets are more left leaning, but I make a difference in the type of protest and get(my interpretation of course) why the “louder” reaction and coverage would be different. B) I’m not sure I’m comfortable with the term “blind eye”. I think of it more like the potential Covid spread was of lesser concern than what would have happened if the protests were shut down or regulated in some way. I think agitation or violence would have only increased had that happened. Law enforcement across the Country pretty much stood down rather than exacerbate things imo. C) There’s a variety of metrics that can be used to determine the success or failure of any administration, but as for “doing very little”, I think that’s overstating things even if just from an economic standpoint. We’re actually in a bad way again, obviously. |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Jan 21, 2021 16:02:27 GMT -8
The music made it difficult to hear everything, but I’m sure if a MAGA group wanted to hold a “disco” on BLM plaza they certainly could. Also, her comment about 25,000 National Guard troops made little sense. I suspect any group/organization that had numbers in the thousands(or more) that were vocal in potentially wreaking havoc on the inauguration event they would be equally deterred by police, etc. Please let me know if I missed something she said. Again, the beginning was particularly muddled for me. This will explain her observations better than I could. www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/01/i-watched-bidens-inauguration-first-hand-katie-hopkins/ |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Jan 21, 2021 16:16:25 GMT -8
I wasn’t aware the question for me was to address any underlying issue. “What to talk about” was my being curious what Vintage expected to see/read re: the events from two years ago. Not sure I understand the last part about “responsible party” either. I wasn’t trying to point fingers regarding the Kavanaugh protests, but just clarify what I understood and offer that to Vintage. Anyhoo, your last remark reminded me of a statement made by Pres. Reagan that I’d forgotten about, but really like. “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.” I excluded the remainder as he goes on to blame the Democratic administration in charge at the time, but I like the first part, standing alone. it is a statement of generality for discussion, and to introduce an opinion built on observation and as a member of a federal republic. i don't care who answers and states an opinion, that discusses the problems. if all that i stated is interpreted as needing you personally to address the underlying issue, and causing a slight defensiveness by response, then it is no longer a discussion, but a dismissal of opinion. you exclude the remainder, and interpret the statements as blame of the democratic administration in charge at the time. how you arrive at that conclusion, is exactly why discussions change from discussions to dismissal of discussion. no, i did not state any such correlation. i idid not say it was a democrat party or a republican party. you have assumed, i think, with a slight bent toward bias. we all do it, but the very basic building block of a discussion is to understand what is stated, and not assume, and if not understood, ask questions. you did not understand, interpreted incorrectly, and did not ask what is meant. i think you may have assumed, by my use of the word "democratic", that i was referring to a party affiliation. i will clarify, with the goal of understanding: democratic means the taret was an assault on the people. i don't know what is confusing or hard to understand what is meant by responsible party, unless the entire statement was ignored as to meaning. party...any party. party affiliation. affiliation identification. controlling party. not what party is responsible. these are the statements i made. they are clear. i truly hope you are not trying to insinuate a preference in my thoughts for a republican or a democrat. if you are, then you definitely have not understood any post i have made on the subject, in any thread. it does not really matter what a person likes or dislikes in a statement. that is not discussion. that is judgement and dismissal and somewhat biassed. You wrote “Steve, but....”, so of course I’d think that applies to my comment that you’re replying to. Regarding the bolded: I thought I was asking about that which I didn’t understand? I wasn’t confused by your use of “democratic”. Your last comment again began with “Steve,...not what party is responsible or what party did what...” which makes it seem like I was stating or implying the opposite. I can see now what you were saying. Sometimes it’s awkward when we don’t have the fluid or natural sort of back and forth that would exist if we were sitting in the same room when “talking” is instead written out. Also, the “snip” wasn’t to be dismissive of your words, those were all perfectly clear, but rather to simply make space when quote boxes get too unwieldy. I made the effort to hide part of the post in a spoiler tag, but was unsuccessful, so “snip” worked in a pinch. Believe me, I’m very happy to entertain most any discussion, and I do my best to listen and be open-minded about things. I most certainly have a bias in many areas, but I’m smart enough to know that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily always right. I’m also smart enough to know I’m not very smart. |
|
.
