|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 14 2021 06:15 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:00 Jockmcplop wrote:
The headlines today are about republicans turning on Trump, but I don't see that at all.
I see a bunch of spineless cowards who have an opportunity to say 'never again will the US be beset by homegrown white supremacist terrorism' and instead saying 'Yeah but what about BLM?'
This is the house. It hasn't had more than a handful of openly sane republicans in it since they went full gerrymandering in 2010 and all their moderates got primaried by lunatics when they realized only a republican could win. To make matters worse for them, if they do get sent packing they go back to their districts and have to find real jobs within 2 years - meaning that these death threats are gonna hit a lot closer for them than for any senators who have a much longer term (6 years, meaning most aren't up for 4 + years). The senate is where they're turning on him - indicated by reports that the head of the party there (and effectively the 2nd or 3rd most powerful person in washington after Biden is elected, and currently the 2nd most) is going to vote for Impeachment. The senate only had 8 out of 54 GOP vote for Trump's nonsense, while the house had >50% of the GOP vote for Trump's nonsense even after the coup attempt. Granted, at least half of those are true believers, but a ton of the house are just paying lip service because they're cowards, and pretty much no one in the senate is a true believer.
Yeah, it really goes to show the difference in the type of person elected to the Senate as well as their priorities. Senators tend to be long-term politicians with substantial experience, while the House is a smorgasboard of career politicians (either there for ages or just starting), normal people who managed to put together convincing enough campaigns for their tiny districts, and wackadoos. Every member of the House must consider re-election at all times, and many of them are more threatened by attacks from the fringes than their opposition thanks to gerrymandering.
I'd be curious how much of a correlation there is between their district's partisan lean and the 10 R's that voted to impeach, for sure.
|
10 out of 211 republicans voted to impeach. It might seem low (it is), but it's twice the amount of the previously most bipartisan impeachment prior to this one (Clinton had 5 democrats voting to impeach).
I still don't believe the conviction will happen. It needs what, 16 republicans to vote to convict in the Senate ? Only if McConnell openly states he agrees does that has a chance.
|
On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary  . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country.
Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered).
There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building).
|
On January 14 2021 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. So you think she was trying to reassure all of her insane QAnon Trump supporting Twitter followers that the speaker was ok?
I don’t know her so can’t speak about her intentions. She was locked down and reported about the crazy stuff that happened. Like, idk, tons of house staffers of both parties that were trapped and scared.
|
On January 14 2021 06:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. So you think she was trying to reassure all of her insane QAnon Trump supporting Twitter followers that the speaker was ok? I don’t know her so can’t speak about her intentions. She was locked down and reported about the crazy stuff that happened. Like, idk, tons of house staffers of both parties that were trapped and scared.
She stated earlier in the day that "Today is 1776". Take it as you will. If the Parler dump is exploited by authorities and she was somehow linked to that shit, it will be known.
|
On January 14 2021 06:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. So you think she was trying to reassure all of her insane QAnon Trump supporting Twitter followers that the speaker was ok? I don’t know her so can’t speak about her intentions. She was locked down and reported about the crazy stuff that happened. Like, idk, tons of house staffers of both parties that were trapped and scared.
Well you're right there's no point going ballistic about it right now anyway.
Its worth noting that she will probably be a person of interest for the FBI or whoever is investigating this, so the truth if she had some involvement will probably end up coming out.
|
On January 14 2021 06:27 Nouar wrote:
10 out of 211 republicans voted to impeach. It might seem low (it is), but it's twice the amount of the previously most bipartisan impeachment prior to this one (Clinton had 5 democrats voting to impeach).
I still don't believe the conviction will happen. It needs what, 16 republicans to vote to convict in the Senate ? Only if McConnell openly states he agrees does that has a chance.
Another way to look at it is that this is one of the only votes in years where House GOP leaders didn't provide their caucus with a party line to vote with, which I can guarantee you was interpreted by many GOP Reps as yet another conservative purity test, which are, as luck would have it, the only thing many of those people know how to do.
|
On January 14 2021 05:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. There's a really, really, really troubling pattern of behavior from that member. She has repeatedly said she's going to take weapons into the chamber, has been arrested multiple times, and is an all around lunatic. She was also specifically told NOT to tweet that by security forces. If it had been from someone without all of those attributes, that would be believable. It's not. At this point, the burden is on her to prove she's not trying to get people killed, as all of her actions (and many of her words) scream that she has been trying that.
By all means, be troubled about whatever else she is and does. Just don’t go all QAnon on me and propose conspiratorial explanations for every tweet. That’s just insane and looks insane (the burden is on her to prove she’s not trying to get people killed is telling someone to prove a negative, and fucking disingenuous as hell). Occam’s razor doesn’t go out the door just because you have some reason to presume this is a bad individual.
|
Fun fact, only 5% of house republicans can be trusted to remove someone who attempts an insurrection from power.
Deplorable really is the best word.
|
On January 14 2021 06:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:21 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. There's a really, really, really troubling pattern of behavior from that member. She has repeatedly said she's going to take weapons into the chamber, has been arrested multiple times, and is an all around lunatic. She was also specifically told NOT to tweet that by security forces. If it had been from someone without all of those attributes, that would be believable. It's not. At this point, the burden is on her to prove she's not trying to get people killed, as all of her actions (and many of her words) scream that she has been trying that. By all means, be troubled about whatever else she is and does. Just don’t go all QAnon on me and propose conspiratorial explanations for every tweet. That’s just insane and looks insane (the burden is on her to prove she’s not trying to get people killed is telling someone to prove a negative, and fucking disingenuous as hell). Occam’s razor doesn’t go out the door just because you have some reason to presume this is a bad individual.
We are not a court of law. There is more than enough evidence to assume she had some level of involvement.
Its up to the authorities to prove it if she is going to be charged, but in the meantime, unless you can suggest some reasonable explanation for her tweets (I don't see 'reporting on the wellbeing of her no. 1 political enemy' as reasonable here, given her character) I'm going to assume that its because she was involved with the terrorists in some way (maybe the ones she was photographed with).
|
Right, when I say burden of proof, I'm referring exclusively to in regards to my own opinion. I'm no court of law, but her behavior is indistinguishable from someone who has that goal. I don't believe she can be held criminally liable for anything that happens in congress. Expulsion or censure are my preferred remedies.
|
On January 13 2021 09:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2021 03:33 Nouar wrote:On January 13 2021 02:42 Danglars wrote:On January 13 2021 01:52 Nouar wrote:In a blow for Trump and republicans in general, as he was a large donor, Sheldon Adelson died today. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/12/sheldon-adelson-casino-magnate-trump-donor-dies-aged-87As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. He donated millions of dollars for Holocaust museums and a Jewish schools. He was quite the philanthropist. It’s a blow to the millions he helped, his wife, and his children. He selflessly paid employees during COVID shutdowns. And all people can think about is political disagreement. Yeah, I hope everybody speaking ill of the recently dead is called out for the absolute ghouls that they are. So, in your view then, if, let's say Jeff Bezos, dies today, he's gonna be a hero in your mind ? After all the bullshit he's done, the working conditions at Amazon etc ? His foundation did some good things, but... Let's see... Amazing, he did pay his employees during the shutdowns ! Good ! (I wouldn't call it "selfless" though, just "humane". It's a drop in a lake for him, as if you gave 20 bucks to a homeless guy) He was also one of the worst offenders for decades in denying employees to unionize, which usually allows them to fight better for their rights instead of being at the mercy of their boss' mood. He directly spent a whole lot more than what he spent during the shutdowns, to have states outlaw collective bargaining, to deny his employees rights. Such a wonderful, selfless boss, always thinking about his workforce, right ? Yeah. Great (depending on your views), he fought against cannabis legalization because his son died of it and he considered it a gateway to harder drugs. Oops, should we forget he made his fortune with casinos/gambling, a business that is rigged against players and exploits addiction to squeeze the money out of people ? Spending millions to know the better ways to make people waste money again, by studying cognitive patterns and addictive behaviour. Splendid ! Wonderful, he donated to create hospitals (oops, in illegal settlements where Israel didn't have the right to build). Cool, jewish schools and holocaust museums. I don't have anything against that, it's cool. He did good things to send jewish youngsters in Israel for visits, that's also good. The issue is that looking at his extreme views, I'm not sure if all those things are not proselytism, which I'm less fond of. Against a state for palestinians, against international agreements, he weaponized the israeli-american council to serve his views. THEN you have the political actions in the USA or Israel, where republicans going to primaries had nearly no choice but to cosy to him to have a chance, and then he held them. I hate that shit, it's called corruption and influence trafficking, even if Citizen United more or less legalized it (it's like, 99% legal as long as you don't "coordinate". Fuck PACs). For example to get states to forbid collective bargaining by unions. Largest backer of Trump (we kinda know about that guy) and Netanyahu (an extreme right-wing bastard), etc etc. I could care less about the Republican and Trump funding, but I definitely weigh how he got his wealth, and what are his aims in weaponizing it. In my view, it definitely skews a LOT more towards bad than good. So yeah, good, he spent a few hundred millions to somewhat good causes (let's round to 500M$, 3% of his wealth, which is less % of my net worth than I donated in the last 5 years alone, praise me when I'm dead). Ok let's be honest, it's probably more as I didn't do a full-on research on his returns of course, just the more visible stuff. I'm not sure he followed up on a 200M annual pledge since 2008 to israeli causes for example. And the rest.... Bah. Outside of the 500M+ in the last 10 years to gain influence in politics, it's stuff like Freedom's Watch, advocating to continue the war in Irak, etc etc. To compare, Bill & Melinda Gates are at 45B in donations, with the rest of their fortunes to be donated when they die. You will most definitely NOT find Sheldon Adelson in the "Giving Pledge" list. I am not desecrating him, I just hate wonderful eulogies for people who did a little good and a lot of bad. It doesn't cancel out. I just said that I (me, myself), am not going to miss him, and it's a blow to the funding of the republican party. Call me a ghoul if that makes you feel better. Do note that he donated mostly to causes that served jews. Only a little was spent on stuff like medical research through a smaller foundation, that serve everyone. You will call me a great globalist, but I'm not fond of communautarism. It would also be good of you to remember that I am not a democrat nor an american, and that Adelson was not tied to a party until 12/15years ago. I could care less about a party. I care about what people say and do, and fight for. It would also be good of you to even read my fucking post, I mean, it was three lines, hardly a wall of text, unlike this one. I'll quote to you : As an anti-union, pro-israel (I mean, this is not an issue per se, but opposing a palestinian state, supporting illegal settlements etc... definitely is, in my view) billionnaire who made his fortune through gambling (meaning feasting on addiction), I am not going to miss him. Did that mention anything political in why I didn't like him ? No. The closest would be the illegal settlements, and that's more human rights and international law than politics. Everyone deserves some respect, even if its the respect of silence since you can't say anything good about them, when they die. Anything less puts you at a realm barely human. Seriously. The totality of someone's character is not how you feel about Israel-Palestine, trade unionism, "too little spent on philanthropy compared to my ideal," political support of candidates, or whatever other political views you think are too far from mainstream. Come at him in a couple days if you think he's scum of the earth. I basically disagree with almost every sentence of criticism you put in here. But even if I think you're ignorant or morally twisted or whatever life experience and thought process gave rise to these opinions you hold, I can respect you if you observe a modicum of politeness when someone dies. Trump, for all his faults, did himself well when RBG died to give a universally positive speech, so don't act at a level beneath even his corrupt moral character. Even his ideological opposite, donating to causes I think trend towards destruction of good and loss of life, and all the other vitriol I could summon to describe him, George Soros, deserves quiet reflection should I find nothing good to say in the wake of his (eventual) death. I hope someday you argue yourself out of the immediate everything-bad-he-did at news of someone prominent dying, for the sake of politeness and a politics that doesn't live in the gutter of the street.
"Barely human" ? I'm living my life humanely, by not exploiting my next-of-kin. My opinion of someone doesn't change when he dies, it is not a special event that should forgive everything.
People who did good should be celebrated, people who did wrong should bear the cost. I did not insult him, I did not denigrate him, I simply summarized what are the highlights that stand out to me from his life, and told that I, for one, would not miss him. Sorry for not being a hypocrit.
Did you compare what Trump said about RBG and what I said about Adelson ? You can think what you will of RBG, in your view she may be responsible for thousands of unborn deaths due to her position against abortion, as Adelson is, in my eyes, complicit in the deaths of a lot of people due to his positions (palestinians, gamblers, what you want).
But the difference lies somewhere else. Trump is the top elected official of the nation, and has to observe decorum. This is the only time in his presidency when I was impressed by the restraint he showed. The rest of the time was spent mocking the disabled.
I do not have to observe that decorum, nor provide public statement. I can provide my honest opinion, unbound by these shackles.
Don't you believe the living deserve as much respect as the dead ? I'd rather someone keeps on living, but I'm going to be consistent in my opinion of them, alive, or dead.
You can be sure I'm going to denigrate the hell out of Jean-Marie Le Pen after he dies, for the piece of shit he's been all his life, as I do while he is still alive. I'm just not going to shout it to his family.
Don't tell me Adelson's wife and children as going to read my post, please.
Death is only the end of life (it might be the start of another for some), but it's just a natural event that happens when the time comes. It does not magically erase the bullshit one has done, sorry.
Obligatory godwin : would you have mourned Hitler ? Will you Khameini, Putin ?
And about Soros ?
As of May 2020, he had a net worth of $8.3 billion,[12][13] having donated more than $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations,[14] of which $15 billion have already been distributed, representing 64% of his original fortune, making him the "most generous giver" (in terms of percentage of net worth) according to Forbes.[15]
Open Society Foundations (OSF), formerly the Open Society Institute, is an international grantmaking network founded by business magnate George Soros.[2] Open Society Foundations financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media.
Even if that's a whole lot more than Adelson, and was not provided exclusively to a specific community, he still made his money from hedge funds and short-selling/buying during crises, which still makes him an asshole in my view, as this means others get the short end of the stick and are sent into poverty.
Even Trump's businesses are less malevolent to me though some of his behaviour is shitty, as top-class buildings at least don't affect most regular people and don't result in deaths. (Trump's father preyed on the weak and poor though).
|
On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722
(referring to the twitter post) This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? In retrospect, all these security crises and events like this or 9/11 and such would all have benefited from being completely ignored. The only thing that happens is some notion among the powers-that-be that Something Must Be Done and then to arrest a bunch of random people or remove some random App from the internet.
|
On January 14 2021 06:27 Nouar wrote:
10 out of 211 republicans voted to impeach. It might seem low (it is), but it's twice the amount of the previously most bipartisan impeachment prior to this one (Clinton had 5 democrats voting to impeach).
I still don't believe the conviction will happen. It needs what, 16 republicans to vote to convict in the Senate ? Only if McConnell openly states he agrees does that has a chance. Clinton was over a blowjob.
This is an actual insurrection.
But it shows that the Republican party is still 'lost'.
|
On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength?
If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there.
Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic.
|
On January 14 2021 06:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:30 Danglars wrote:On January 14 2021 05:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. So you think she was trying to reassure all of her insane QAnon Trump supporting Twitter followers that the speaker was ok? I don’t know her so can’t speak about her intentions. She was locked down and reported about the crazy stuff that happened. Like, idk, tons of house staffers of both parties that were trapped and scared. Well you're right there's no point going ballistic about it right now anyway. Its worth noting that she will probably be a person of interest for the FBI or whoever is investigating this, so the truth if she had some involvement will probably end up coming out.
Obviously, any coordinating between members of Congress and the violent faction that stormed Congress is a huge matter of investigation for the FBI. She should be asked if she was in contact with various organizers before or during or had knowledge of any plans to force entry.
|
There is absolutely no chance someone removed panic buttons ahead of the attack as an attempt to get congress members killed. That's some QAnon type factoid that will almost certainly be disproven as either wrong or innocent whenever some journalist looks at it.
|
On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic. This is the national guard, not the army. Their job isn't to actually fight (well technically it is but not practically). Their job is guard duty and helping with natural disasters.
|
On January 14 2021 07:01 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 06:56 Grumbels wrote:On January 14 2021 06:30 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 06:20 Starlightsun wrote:On January 14 2021 05:24 Mohdoo wrote:On January 14 2021 05:04 Starlightsun wrote:
I'm worried about the threatened armed protests at the state's capitols. Hopefully DC will be locked down with a concerted effort but all the rest feels like wildcards at this point. Especially places with lax gun laws and lots of Trump supporters (high overlap I would think). It just takes one person with explosives or high capacity magazines to wreck carnage. Fortunately for Oregon, dealing with right wing terrorists is like Canadians shoveling snow at this point. Won’t be long until we add right wing violence to our school drills Man that is scary . Luckily we don't have that in Hawaii but there's a surprising amount of trumpers coming out of the woodwork. On the local news they said our capitol building is one of the most open and least secure in the country. Pretty much every state has been warned to have the national guard called up and standing by for the next week for their first sessions (from the 17th-20th iirc). Which is the actual military (albeit less trained than active duty) rather than the poorly trained wannabes that many US cops tend to be (the capitol guard should be the best of the best, and well, you saw how that went). Which is the right call, it's safer for everyone involved: they have stricter rules of engagement, are less likely to kill, and this is something that they have been trained for (defensive perimeters against large numbers of hostiles - cops rarely get involved in things where they expect to be outnumbered). There are a bunch of somewhat amusing photos scattered around of them in the morning at the US capitol buildings. They're all sleeping or resting in most of the pictures, but I assume they're all taking shifts. It's far more than could ever be overwhelmed by a crowd. (Many representatives have posted pictures of the guards all along the hallways of the building). https://twitter.com/WCVB/status/1349365845496094722 This is such idiotic security theater. The attack on the capitol happened because they announced a huge demonstration and then the police let them in. There wasn't any need for an army to occupy Washington as deterrence. What do they think it does? Show strength? If the French army was seen lounging leasurely in official places and pictures were taken, heads would roll (figuratively speaking). At least get them chairs, beds, or put them in gymnasiums, park them somewhere please ? Not just dumped right in the middle... And if they are on duty, behave accordingly... This should be an eyesore for every military out there. Someone said earlier than the best should protect the capitol, I don't necessarily agree. The best units are sent where it's needed. Not on guard duty. You can have a core cluster of extremely trained professionnals, of course, but these experts do not train themselves to guard doors. They would quit faster than you could train them, it's not realistic.
We have a specific military unit exactly for this purpose in Denmark. Livgarden. They protect the royal and particular important buildings, they are required to always have loaded weapons when they are on duty and need zero authorisation to use lethal force if they deem it necessary.
...and yes this also include the soldiers that are basically just standing guard as glorified tourist attractions.
I was honestly shocked about how lax the security at Capitol was.
|
Northern Ireland26802 Posts
On January 14 2021 06:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2021 05:21 Nevuk wrote:On January 14 2021 05:17 Danglars wrote:
There needs to be an investigation about whatever panic buttons were removed prior to the riot breaching capitol police line. Representatives escorting visitors should only have access to their own offices.
Also, don’t go ballistic over a member saying Pelosi had been taken to safety. If you want to condemn any use of social media during the riot by members and their staffs, go that route. There's a really, really, really troubling pattern of behavior from that member. She has repeatedly said she's going to take weapons into the chamber, has been arrested multiple times, and is an all around lunatic. She was also specifically told NOT to tweet that by security forces. If it had been from someone without all of those attributes, that would be believable. It's not. At this point, the burden is on her to prove she's not trying to get people killed, as all of her actions (and many of her words) scream that she has been trying that. By all means, be troubled about whatever else she is and does. Just don’t go all QAnon on me and propose conspiratorial explanations for every tweet. That’s just insane and looks insane (the burden is on her to prove she’s not trying to get people killed is telling someone to prove a negative, and fucking disingenuous as hell). Occam’s razor doesn’t go out the door just because you have some reason to presume this is a bad individual.
I assume there’s a lot of information floating around that’s anything from unconfirmed to utter bollocks. In previous eras some of the tide of wildfire would at least somewhat be somewhat stemmed until verified.
If, attached security specifically said not to utilise things like social media in the you know, live riot and she still went ahead and did it. Idiotic and irresponsible is borderline the most benign interpretation, her prior behaviour certainly doesn’t help.
Could be a complete and total dumbass to be fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
