Your reading of the Jan 6th event is purely based on front-facing reporting.
No. It's based mainly on a tweet and a speech from the President, the two public steps taken to organize and initiate an attempted coup d'etat.
You're either forcefully closing your eyes (willful blindness) to the many dubious aspects of the front-facing narratives or simply refusing to dig deeper.
Your idea of "digging deeper" is mostly distraction from how simple and obvious it was, and accords with those who search for imaginary perpetrators of the coup attempt (or a fake one) inside the state other than the president himself and his partisans, or in "antifa," or on "the left." The acts were undeniable. Since then, those who prefer for whatever reason not to acknowledge them have spun and spun and spun and spun.
I've no interest in re-hashing these old arguments at this point as there are too many other power-grab/horror show events that have transpired since then, but let's agree to disagree on this.
Yes you do have interest. It's why you can never not respond to these posts. I repeat the exact same things each time about an open-and-shut set of public acts of the president and the mob he gathered, an attempted coup d'etat as the last stage in a months-long attempt to overturn an election said president had lost. You then spin tangents, including the canard that there are greater crimes in this cruel world (so what? is it therefore not an attempted coup d'etat?). If you don't acknowledge what I say, you can't actually disagree or agree with it.
(If it's new, I've already seen too much of Greenwald and many others falling flat on this. Rely on your own arguments but I ain't following no links to other flappers unless you're digging up new primary sources, or at least bothering to summarize the main points.)
*
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
. I mean, look: you're a sharp mind -- there have been numerous times I've marveled at your crisp, erudite presentation of words and ability to articulate in depth across myriad topics... even when it may have been at my expense, on occasion.
And I'll disclose I no longer recall, offhand, all of the particulars of the circumstances (although I was reminded of some of the details when transcribing the below video clip). And also grant, 'on paper', your scenario is certainly plausible; perhaps in some alternate version of reality, even reasonable (arguably).
But the passage of time and my own (evolving) perspective on so much of the theatrics/surrealism in play, particularly since 2020 (with events incrementally devolving further into absurdity/blatant criminality [etc] since then) only further embolden my earlier stances/theorizing on this topic.
----
OK, FWIW I found a youtube clip that better presents the conversations during this debate (or whatever one wants to call this presentation).
I took the time to edit the transcription for the first ~ 8 min for better legibility (the entire clip is almost ~40min long and I didn't listen to more than ~8 min to this point. Very low probability I will endure any more of it given some of the participants involved). The below are comments from Greenwald.
Again, most if not all of this is simply commentary based on front-facing information, or information available via mainstream press.
Greenwald:
Starting at the ~1:30 mark:
...first of all I was going to say that I think one of the problems with how these things are debated is that a lot of people these days have very binary prisms for understanding things; a lot of that comes from YouTube debate where you have to declare yourself on one side or the other... so Destiny said, "oh everybody either hates this insurrection or they deny it happens or they think it's good", and there's so much Middle Ground, namely that for me this was a political protest that spilled over into a riot where a small minority of the people engage in violence. I don't think we want to urge that to happen, we don't want to defend that. I consider that lamentable. But the fact that it's laughable to call this an Insurrection is actually demonstrated by the examples that they're using. This was a three-hour Riot that was extremely easily subdued; it doesn't remotely compare to any prior insurrections, let alone to the Civil War.
The only people who were killed on January 6th were four people. All four of whom were Trump supporters, two of whom dropped [died] of a heart attack, and one from a speed overdose... these were not exactly a well-trained militia and when Jack Smith went to charge Donald Trump with multiple crimes, he had a lot of options to charge him with and he charged him with a lot of crimes, including very dubious ones. He did not charge him with inciting an Insurrection for reasons that I think we ought to ask ourselves why, but the the fact that this is such a minor event in history is demonstrated by the fact that the media who needed this to be a major event immediately started lying about what happened, saying that Brian Sicknick was murdered when he had his head bashed in with a fire extinguisher only to learn that actually he called his mother that night, he was fine; he died the next day of what the coroner said were natural causes... Because the media knew that if you can't say that even one person supposedly perpetrating the Insurrection killed anybody, pulled out a gun, let alone discharged a weapon (all of which is true), it's a joke to call this an Insurrection. At best it's a riot and that's the reason why Trump hasn't been charged with an Insurrection. The only time he ever commented on January 6 about whether he thought there should be violence or not was when he said the following, he said, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" -- he urged them to be peaceful in how they went there; to the extent there was violence I think you can make the argument that the FBI informants -- that even the New York Times admits were there -- were the ones that urged it, but even if the people who were there were the ones responsible, at best this is a riot. You could so easily make the case that the 2020 riots were a far greater insurrectionary threat than anything that happened on January 6th.
~4:15 mark:
The particular question that we were presented with is we're going to debate January 6 and whether it was an Insurrection. Now, I don't blame Destiny and Ed for not wanting to debate that, for wanting to debate a whole set of other issues about whether Trump acted improperly, whether he was naughty and the things he did after the election, because there is no argument to make that what happened on January 6 rises to the level of insurrection, and that's why an extremely pro-aggressive prosecutor named Jack Smith decided not to charge Donald Trump with that crime, because he knew there was no way that he could possibly bring a conviction against anybody, let alone Donald Trump, who told everybody to be peaceful when going to the capital, about whether or not that was an Insurrection, whether that rose to that level, and even in a colloquial sense what we've called an Insurrection in the past is in a completely different universe...
~7:40 mark:
...the question that you asked was, "is this a coup?"; if you look at how other coups are perpetrated, and I think a lot of this is that, if you're an American, you have this very soft history, you don't know what a coup is you think that like what CNN tells you is a coup is a coup... usually the way coups work is the leader of the country, whoever is in charge of the military, orders the military to seize control of the levers of power. Trump was the commander-in-chief on January 6th; the military was duty bound to obey his orders. They had a right to disobey if they were illegal but if this were a coup, why didn't Trump order the military to seize control of Power and turn over the election process to him? Why didn't he order the armed factions that formed the the law enforcement part of the military and the executive branch that serve under his command to do that as well? That's what happens in a coup; that didn't happen here because Trump wasn't trying to perpetrate a coup...
I see GG's doing the same thing again where a "coup" is defined solely as a military coup with tanks, etc. (I think Trump would have been happy with that, if his interim pick at DoD could have swung it or had bothered to try.) But that's not the only case. Call it coup, putsch, overthrow, auto-coup, state of exception, whatever, what was attempted was a suspension of the procedural completion of the election so that Trump could stay in office, and it's what he asked his assembled mob to do for him, and his invitation to the rally and speech there are sufficient evidence submitted by the primary perpetrator of the attempt as public events, without needing all the additional fake elector and "find me 11,000 votes" stuff, although that obviously also happened. Jack Smith's indictments and his presumably being a scaredycat about a case for "insurrection" don't change any of that. To once again preempt the usual fallacies, all this can be true without preremptorily disallowing claims that the (traditionally nativist fascist) main groups organizing the mob were also FBI-infested and possibly under the control of state ops; and without being an endorsement of the Democrats, Biden, or the particular ways in which they're trying to use January 6; and without claiming there aren't even worse things afoot in the world. I'm just disallowing the Israeli defense.*
It's all been said before. So I suggest we leave it be for now, you maybe go read the Hogeland thing I posted about the insurrection clause and we switch to other subjects of interest on this thread.
ON EDIT: That's not to mean you shouldn't talk about it some more if you want to. I will not bother to reply, as I didn't for many months, because it's just the same stuff over and over. That's to suggest we could make this thread occasionally go other places.
========
* "Israeli defense" meaning something like, "Why are you singling us out for murdering tens of thousands of people and celebrating it on live TV and by tiktok, when there have been atrocities by other parties who killed many times more people? You must be biased against us!"
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
...what was attempted was a suspension of the procedural completion of the election so that Trump could stay in office, and it's what he asked his assembled mob to do for him, and his invitation to the rally and speech there are sufficient evidence submitted by the primary perpetrator of the attempt as public events, without needing all the additional fake elector and "find me 11,000 votes" stuff, although that obviously also happened.
My core driving question to the above (and similar sentiment) essentially involves the extent of his actual agency. My 'working' answer to this is that I lean increasingly [actually I lie: I am now pretty comfortably in this mindset] towards a lack of true agency on the part of Trump in this and other events/matters raised and/or caused by Trump.
Whatever any of us may think about 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' (and it's converse: Trump Sycophancy Syndrome) is that BOTH have been POWERFUL and EFFECTIVE TOOLS in manipulating mass sentiment.
By way of one brief example: There is a sizable contingent that decided on covid-related issues almost entirely based on their reaction to TRUMP, either to spite him and his "followers" or in the opposite direction, in solidarity with Trump (in either case, it's deep irony as Trump -- as we already mentioned -- ushered in lockdowns via 'Warp Speed' and STILL promotes/boasts about the 'effectiveness'/'success' of these ineffective mRNA products; he continues to stand by his deeply harmful covid-policy implementations. We can raise numerous other non-covid examples as well -- though frankly I will say without question that the Biden admin subsequently fared far worse in just about ALL topics of note across the board, including escalations overseas).
Of course the above also serves to dilute and in many ways 'de-platform' earnest and non-fucking-partisan positions AGAINST Covid policies/actions.
A more devastatingly effective limited hangout/controlled opposition couldn't have been developed/created any better than TRUMP (or, the TRUMP OP).
So it's either a MASSIVE fortuitous and coincidental series of happenstances that he turned out to have such a deeply polarizing and DAMAGING impact (psychologically as much as practically) on our current era, OR: it was -- at least in part -- purposeful, by drivers operating above him.
What is it they say about politics? "Nothing in politics happens by accident" (whether or not FDR actually uttered these words doesn't negate its accuracy in many respects).
Perhaps TRUMP was an OP for many, many years. Perhaps he was groomed in time. Or maybe it was a relatively recent development.
But if I was to wager the scant pesos in my pocket, it'd be on him being an OP, and that certain events were part of an OP. (that's not to say it's the same "OP" that some others may theorize it to be -- muddied waters/poisoned wells abound, arguably more so than ever before -- but I don't believe, for an instant, that TRUMP has full agency on certain events/matters).
That's my take, at least.
-----
Trump's agendas/core drivers aside, we cannot dismiss (as part of our calculations/speculations) the authentic/genuine followers of TRUMP: those poor rubes that actually believe he may offer hope to the struggling/middle classes, and/or the other [sizable] segment of the population with LEGITIMATE sentiments of feeling disenfranchised/non-represented/de-platformed in this Country, and will vote for Trump for little other reason than SPITE, or as a big Middle Finger to the System, rather than any earnest belief in Trump's rhetoric.
By way of one (largely mainstream, granted) example:
@erichhartmann · This happened a few times back in 2016, and then again in 2020: democrats and independents go to a Trump rally, or mingle with MAGA, and are genuinely surprised they're not rubes, or racists but in fact are super nice and considerate.
@robbystarbuck
Democrat presidential candidate Dean Phillips went to a Trump rally and found out that Trump voters are thoughtful, kind, diverse, hospitable and generally awesome people who feel like no one is listening to them but Trump. He now says Dems are delusional.
Trump isn't a politician, he's a cult leader. That's why he's so good at manipulating mass sentiment, because a scary number of people are true believers. When he says "show up on the 6th and help me stop the steal" a lot of people are going to do exactly that, and they did. You're looking for an answer to something that already has a perfectly good one.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
DrEvil » Wed Jan 24, 2024 3:26 pm wrote:Trump isn't a politician, he's a cult leader. That's why he's so good at manipulating mass sentiment, because a scary number of people are true believers. When he says "show up on the 6th and help me stop the steal" a lot of people are going to do exactly that, and they did. You're looking for an answer to something that already has a perfectly good one.
But but Spidey Sense!
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
. He’s a con man — a good (or bad, depending on perspective) one — and an uber-troll.
And if anyone believes that a Trump character can be President with full agency and no compromise/capture then they’re more deluded than previously assumed.
It’s absolute laugh out loud absurdity to believe that Trump is the sole driver of all the Trump activities since his presidency.
But by all means, carry on.
(The mere fact alone that there were both undercover and fully out-in-the-open federal agents at the Jan6 event, instigating the crowd, and that one of them shot & killed someone on that day, is enough to make any sober-minded person pause and reflect. But some of you continue to prefer to believe in Evil Orange Man as primary culprit in all that is Not Good)
JackRiddler wrote: Isabella Weber has done great work on this case of "sellers' inflation" and is leading a small revolution among economists, and I challenge anyone not named Elvis to go find her stuff online. (I'm assuming you have, Elvis.)
Yes, and yes. I've been following Weber closely. Some may recall Paul Krugman's attempt to belittle her findings, then had to issue an apology.
Taking Aim at Sellers’ Inflation Jul 13, 2023 Isabella M. Weber
Economists and political leaders at multilateral and European institutions have finally accepted that corporate profits are a primary driver of inflation today. But getting the analysis right is only the first step; now we need a fundamental change in how we address the problem.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
And if anyone believes that a Trump character can be President with full agency and no compromise/capture then they’re more deluded than previously assumed.
It’s absolute laugh out loud absurdity to believe that Trump is the sole driver of all the Trump activities since his presidency.
But by all means, carry on.
(The mere fact alone that there were both undercover and fully out-in-the-open federal agents at the Jan6 event, instigating the crowd, and that one of them shot & killed someone on that day, is enough to make any sober-minded person pause and reflect. But some of you continue to prefer to believe in Evil Orange Man as primary culprit in all that is Not Good)
Did Trump, or did he not, spend weeks and weeks ahead of the election saying it was going to be stolen from him, and did he, or did he not, spend weeks after the election saying it had been stolen from him, and for people to come to the Capitol and help "Stop the Steal" and "fight like Hell"?
And, as you said, he's a con man, and a depressingly good one at that - like any good cult leader - with a large number of followers who actually believe all the stupid shit coming out of his mouth. Don't you think it possible that a con man - probably the most famous man in the country, with the media reporting every fucking dumb thing coming out his stupid fucking mouth - with a huge following might have some influence on his followers, and that when he tells them to go somewhere to help him do something many of them might listen? You're arguing as if nothing Trump does has any real world effect unless it's orchestrated by someone else.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
. This goes back to my comments upthread Re: Trump’s agency.
Given historical observations/information, and especially events over the last several years, it’s increasingly apparent Presidents in this country — and this absolutely includes Trump — have long-ago lost much of their agency (particularly since JFK got taken out).
Look who we have as primary candidates right now: 2 exceedingly old, compromised, corrupt men, one quite literally feeble-minded and likely unfit for any job function (to the extent he’s ever actually been involved in any notable decision while in office), let alone as representative in the White House. The other has reportedly/apparently beaten his competition without even needing to participate in debates.
Farce. Charade.
It’s pathetic, the entire process has become a large-scale trolling exercise at this point, and yet in many ways it’s fitting for this current zeitgeist. We, collectively, deserve no better. (Though this is far from defeatist. Millions of us have opposed/countered the egregious affronts of the last several years from the onset, and will continue to do so; this may have little impact on the broader population, however: many will continue to follow herd mentality)
Meanwhile, actions at the border of Texas seem to building up to the early phases of yet another OP*. On an election year, naturally.
Observe, the current front-facing news. ‘Developing’ story, of course.
Greg Abbott Urged To 'Fully Militarize' Texas State Guard To Counter Biden Jan 25, 2024 at 8:23 AM EST
A leading Texan nationalist has urged Governor Greg Abbott to dramatically expand and militarize the Texas State Guard if President Biden federalizes the Texas National Guard, as some Democrats are demanding, in response to the ongoing border crisis.
Texan House Democrats Greg Casar and Joaquin Castro have suggested Biden should bring the Texas National Guard under federal control using a mechanism known as Title 10 status if Abbott maintains his current policy over the border with Mexico. …
*OP = operation, if not clear. You know, like variations of COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, NORTHWOODS, MOCKINGBIRD, etc. These examples are merely the publicly-disclosed operations, of course. There are also clandestine operations. Preaching to the choir here in RI, surely.
You keep trying to win an argument no one here seems to be having with you.
The matter of broad systemic or structural policy independent of individual office-holders is not here being disputed, unless I missed someone's post.
The matter of political stage plays, kayfabe and other forms of propaganda dominating the day-to-day news is not here in dispute.
Nevertheless, individuals and groups can commit acts independently of these factors, even if these acts change nothing about the structural and systemic policy directions and imperatives, at least not immediately.
After the 2020 election and until January 6th, Trump and his followers did what they did. It was as I've described.
You haven't described it as anything else. You have not either acknowledged, or denied, the facts of Trump's invitation to his mob, or his spoken exhortation for them to go overthrow the ongoing election procedure and extend his term in office by being strong and never backing down. (The attempted coup d'etat.)
Rather, you rigorously avoid acknowledging or describing these events. You once again try to diver discussion to a model of a contextual picture in which structural and systemic policy remains the same regardless of these acts; which it roughly has. But that doesn't change the above, or make Jan. 6th anything less than the conclusion of a post-election coup attempt.
*
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.
To Justice my maker from on high did incline: I am by virtue of its might divine, The highest Wisdom and the first Love.
. My intentions here are not to 'win' arguments. It's to socialize -- as it were, in this obscure space -- thoughts & observations, and arrive at an approximation of what may be in the range of 'truth', or at least better understand external drivers/machinations, if nothing else. At times I may get a bit passionate about it -- perhaps tied to my Mediterranean roots to an extent.
I believe in a number of respects -- perhaps in many respects -- we are more in alignment than dis-alignment, Re: overall issues at play, broadly. The particulars appear to the the sticking points, as they tend to be.
I will maintain -- and believe it's quite demonstrably clear, both back then but especially now -- that Jan 6 was not an "insurrection" or "coup" attempt. You and others may disagree, of course, but that's of minimal consequence to what actually occurred (whether it's closer in viability to my positions or yours/others).
(disregard my penchant for italicizing words/phrases seemingly at random -- my sub-par attempt to emphasize certain words that would otherwise be pitched differently via verbal conversation. I mention this because I seem to recall JR getting irked at this tendency in the past... maybe I still do it to troll him, eh? Such presumption on my part...)
Such presumption on my part...)