Parler is Gone...

[Smit]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3142 time=1610470282 user_id=57]
I do think this whole trend of trying to get your political opponents labeled as "terrorists" is extremely dangerous.  This was initiated by Trump and the right, trying to get the Antifa movement labeled as a terrorist organization.  The problem that this problem is based on was also started by the right, decades ago creating the whole "terrorist" legal classification that can be denied constitutional rights of fair trial and humane treatment.  Combine these, and once your political opponents are classified as terrorists, it's game over for all opposition.
[/quote]

Good point. What would be a better description for the people who stormed the capitol?

[Sharles]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3142 time=1610470282 user_id=57]
I do think this whole trend of trying to get your political opponents labeled as "terrorists" is extremely dangerous.  This was initiated by Trump and the right, trying to get the Antifa movement labeled as a terrorist organization.  The problem that this problem is based on was also started by the right, decades ago creating the whole "terrorist" legal classification that can be denied constitutional rights of fair trial and humane treatment.  Combine these, and once your political opponents are classified as terrorists, it's game over for all opposition.

Good point. What would be a better description for the people who stormed the capitol?
[/quote]
Labels are easy to use and an attempt to shut off any discussion and dialogue. I'm honestly tired of seeing the 'insurrection' label as well. If you look up the definition, it really doesn't fit. My take is these were a bunch of sheeple who got whipped up by Trump's rhetoric, but once they got to the Capitol building, they really weren't sure what to do since Trump had abandoned them by that point, and so they acted like teens, took some selfies, took a couple of souvenirs and then went home. If they'd really wanted to overthrow the government, I've read there was enough firepower for the body count to be way higher and even one guy had a molotov cocktail. These people were dupes, not insurrectionists...

[Matthew Hajicek]

Good point. What would be a better description for the people who stormed the capitol?

The ones who actually went in, with intent to use violence to change the outcome of the vote?  I think "seditionists" is accurate.  Those who used violence without trying to enter would be "rioters", and those who remained outside and without violent intent were merely "protesters".  The latter were well within their rights.  The former should have been met with the same force that was used against both rioters and protesters over the summer.

[RobertELee]

[quote="Matthew Hajicek" post_id=3142 time=1610470282 user_id=57]
[quote="Jim at gentex" post_id=3116 time=1610463374 user_id=83]
Now we have a similar situation where the vast majority of people there were not violent, but the whole group are being portrayed as domestic terrorists.  Pathetic.
[/quote]

I do think this whole trend of trying to get your political opponents labeled as "terrorists" is extremely dangerous.  This was initiated by Trump and the right, trying to get the Antifa movement labeled as a terrorist organization.  The problem that this problem is based on was also started by the right, decades ago creating the whole "terrorist" legal classification that can be denied constitutional rights of fair trial and humane treatment.  Combine these, and once your political opponents are classified as terrorists, it's game over for all opposition.
[/quote]

I guess you forget that democrats have labeled Trump supporters Nazis and Fascists since the beginning.

[Matthew Hajicek]

I guess you forget that democrats have labeled Trump supporters Nazis and Fascists since the beginning.

Not at all.  Nazism and Fascism are political stances, not terrorist organizations.  They're evil and anti-American stances, but believing in them doesn't make one a criminal or a terrorist.

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I don't have fox news as part of my cable channel package.  But if you can't back up your claims then I understand, if you don't want to say specifically what he said cause you know it makes your weak claim crumble then that is fine as well....

Seriously, Jon? We've beaten this dead horse. Those on the Right REFUSE to admit that Trump incited the crowd, specifically told them to walk down to the Capitol and had used all kinds of other language to 'whip' up the crowd to make Pence and the others stand strong.  and keep the election from being 'stolen' from them. Did Trump utter the specific words to loot and destroy the Capitol, no, but that's a rather weak argument against culpability even if it might work inside a court room...it's still morally and ethically reprehensible just because it 'might' be legal.

Yes seriously, I haven't followed it outside of talking to people I know were there.   I am not going to blindly accept the reporting of the media.  You guys keep repeating their talking points and all I am asking is that you point to specifically in his speech or whatever you wish to use that you believe is an incitement.  It's that simple, I am trying to understand from you what you see the problem is, using Trump's own words not what someone else interpreted for you.

I know trying to get anything productive out of smit is an exercise in futility, so I really don't care what he has to say.

[Jeff]

How about if I don't want to waste time talking to a brainwashed Republican?

If that's the case then shut the fuck up already.

[Sharles]

Yes seriously, I haven't followed it outside of talking people I know were there.   I am not going to blindly accept the reporting of the media.  You guys keep repeating their talking points and all I am asking is that you point to specifically in his speech or whatever you wish to use that you believe is an incitement.  It's that simple, I am trying to understand from you what you see the problem is, using Trump's own words not what someone else interpreted for you.

I know trying to get anything productive out of smit is an exercise in futility, so I really don't care what he has to say.

Jon, it's an exercise in futility with both sides. I had this EXACT same discussion with Gcode pages ago. He gave me nearly the exact same excuses you have, and so I went and gave him a link to the transcript of Trump's speech and pointed out some of the places that I found problematic, and Gcode summed it up saying, "you are correct, I don't accept that' or something like that.

The problem is everyone on the Right wants the words from Trump to be, "Thou shalt go to the Capitol building, loot and ransack it and over throw the evil doers who hath stolen the election from thee!" before they accept Trump's culpability, and of course, there isn't anything like that. And so then this is where critical thinking skills have to kick in and say 'did Trump' whip up the crowd telling them the election was stolen and Pence and 'weaker' Republicans need their 'help'? Yes. Did he tell them to walk down the street to the Capitol building? Yes....after that it gets more murky...but clearly a number of those at the rally got the message to loot and ransack the Capitol building from the rest of what he said: did he specifically say it, NO! Did he imply it and hope for it...maybe...probably...Trump is a very low-level, emotional thinker. I don't think Chess would be his game of choice...so it's hard to know if he had any idea that his actions and rhetoric would cause the riot...just not sure...

[Matthew Hajicek]

Plausible deniability has always been key.

[Smit]

I know trying to get anything productive out of smit is an exercise in futility, so I really don't care what he has to say.

Yet you want to keep addressing me. Puzzling.

Regardless, here's what I'll do.

Since you're here I'll assume you have an internet connection. I'll put a few links to news sites that are reputable. You can read them and not have to ask questions of people who think you're a brainwashed Republican.

Does that sound crazy??

I expect you won't find any of them to your taste.

https://apnews.com/">https://apnews.com/

https://www.reuters.com/">https://www.reuters.com/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/

https://www.marketwatch.com/">https://www.marketwatch.com/

[Jon@NOWHERE]

Yes seriously, I haven't followed it outside of talking people I know were there.   I am not going to blindly accept the reporting of the media.  You guys keep repeating their talking points and all I am asking is that you point to specifically in his speech or whatever you wish to use that you believe is an incitement.  It's that simple, I am trying to understand from you what you see the problem is, using Trump's own words not what someone else interpreted for you.

I know trying to get anything productive out of smit is an exercise in futility, so I really don't care what he has to say.

Jon, it's an exercise in futility with both sides. I had this EXACT same discussion with Gcode pages ago. He gave me nearly the exact same excuses you have, and so I went and gave him a link to the transcript of Trump's speech and pointed out some of the places that I found problematic, and Gcode summed it up saying, "you are correct, I don't accept that' or something like that.

The problem is everyone on the Right wants the words from Trump to be, "Thou shalt go to the Capitol building, loot and ransack it and over thrown the evil doers who hath stolen the election from thee!" and of course, there isn't anything like that. And so then this is where critical thinking skills have to kick in and say 'did Trump' whip up the crowd telling them the election was stolen and Pence and 'weaker' Republicans need their 'help'? Yes. Did he tell them to walk down the street to the Capitol building? Yes....after that it gets more murky...but clearly a number of those at the rally got the message to loot and ransack the Capitol building from the rest of what he said: did he specifically say it, NO! Did he imply it and hope for it...maybe...probably...Trump is a very low-level, emotional thinker. I don't think Chess would be his game of choice...so it's hard to know if he had any idea that his actions and rhetoric would cause the riot...just not sure...

What thread and I will go back and read what you posted.

  I think what you will find from most of us on the right is that we want the laws and treatment to be the same for everyone.   If you are going to overlook what one side says and then pitch a fit when the other side says similar things then there is the problem.  If we are going to say that is an incitement and Trump should be removed then that's fine let's remove him and while we are at it remove all other politicians that have done the same.  Which means most of the Democrats and Republicans are going to be removed.

[Jon@NOWHERE]

I know trying to get anything productive out of smit is an exercise in futility, so I really don't care what he has to say.

Yet you want to keep addressing me. Puzzling.

Regardless, here's what I'll do.

Since you're here I'll assume you have an internet connection. I'll put a few links to news sites that are reputable. You can read them and not have to ask questions of people who think you're a brainwashed Republican.

Does that sound crazy??

I expect you won't find any of them to your taste.

https://apnews.com/">https://apnews.com/

https://www.reuters.com/">https://www.reuters.com/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/">https://www.scientificamerican.com/

https://www.marketwatch.com/">https://www.marketwatch.com/

I want to hear your views more than anything, not your news stories and editorials especially since we can all find news stories that fit our views and we will never accept the other sides views.

Which is why I asked sharles to point specifically to what Trump said, I don't want a news story telling me what someone else thinks that you agree with.

[neurosis]

Which means most of the Democrats and Republicans are going to be removed.

I like it. When do we get started.  

[Sharles]

What thread and I will go back and read what you posted.

  I think what you will find from most of us on the right is that we want the laws and treatment to be the same for everyone.   If you are going to overlook what one side says and then pitch a fit when the other side says similar things then there is the problem.  If we are going to say that is an incitement and Trump should be removed then that's fine let's remove him and while we are at it remove all other politicians that have done the same.  Which means most of the Democrats and Republicans are going to be removed.

Page 9 of the capitol building riot: https://mastercamforums.com/phpbbtemp/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=167&start=160">https://mastercamforums.com/phpbbtemp ... &start=160">https://mastercamforums.com/phpbbtemp/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=167&start=160

I'm fine with removing everyone on both sides who does this kind of crap: no arguments from me at all.

[Matthew Hajicek]

I think what you will find from most of us on the right is that we want the laws and treatment to be the same for everyone.

That's what BLM is all about, yet much of the right gets all snippy when black people demand equal treatment.  Cops falsify a warrant and bust into a white couples home and kill them, the cops get prosecuted and convicted.  Cops do the same thing to black people and get off scott free.  Even for outright clear cut murder of a black man in his own apartment, Amber Guyger only got ten years.

Yeah, the right wants equal treatment under the law...