6 Jan 2020 U.S. Events (Split from A Deeply Fractured US)

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
107
Points
780
Remember folks, this is about "that day".
If it serves off into "love Trump, hate Trump, it'll go the route of other threads. We are trying to keep a civil and perhaps, learning, thread going here.
Bruce
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680
We've had this discussion a hundred times here. Someone cites a source and someone that just wants to ridicule the poster and source, pops up and does just that, because they are too lazy to defend it properly with sources from their own Big Media. Sad really.

According to Media Bias/ Fact Check, which we love quoting here, the Postmillennial rates Mixed fact checking, the same rating they give CNN. Postmillennial looks like the right wing version of CNN.

Media Bias / Fact Check includes in their analysis:
For the most part news articles are sourced properly and factually based, though there is a strong right-leaning bias in story selection that denigrates the left and in particular PM Justin Trudeau.


I wouldn't trust anything unless it's from a multiple number of sources. Everyone's happy to lie about Trump, even FBI layers.

*Cross posted Bruce. Tracking about it being about 6 Jan
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
59
Points
530
If you are referring to deplatforming, private companies can kick off anyone they like. Perpetuating “The Big Lie”, in particular by politicians and media figures who ought to know that what they were saying would foment insurrection, would seem to me like a good reason to kicked off. As I asked above, if you truly believed that that the election was stolen from your candidate by a widespread fraud scheme the likes of which never seen before in a stable western democracy and democracy was now dead in your country, how would you not react violently? Especially when none other than the “Leader of the Free World” was telling you so?

If you’re referring to going after perpetrators criminally, as someone on the centre-right I say investigate and prosecute all involved to the full extent of the law. Including politicians and media figures inciting their supporters with The Big Lie. This includes impeaching and convicting the Arsonist-in-Chief. This will serve to dissuade other would-be demagogues that think inciting an insurrectionist mob to keep Congress from performing a constitutionally mandatory duty is a good idea.

I am not even go into all the other impeachable acts he’s committed in his time in office...

So, no, I don’t view holding people accountable for incitement or insurrection to be a “Stalinist witch-hunt”.
I'm not referring to anything like that. What I'm referring to is the current perspective that people have to be completely destroyed for even the smallest slight, as interpreted by self-appointed judge, jury and executioners.

I agree that private companies are free to grant or deny access as they see fit. That being said, the global reach of big tech raises other questions that I won't address here given that it would cause serious thread drift. Yes, those who committed criminal acts should be held accountable, and I didn't mean to suggest they shouldn't. In the end though, the punishment should fit the crime, and be proportionate.

Absolutely destroying someone's life because they happened to support one candidate over another is not going to produce the outcome most beneficial to healing US society. Vindictiveness is not a function of justice. This was the context of my remark. Anything more and you're over reading it.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
44
Points
530
The line between justice and revenge for 06 Jan (and the entire preceding 4+ years) is pretty easy to find, but many people are choosing to walk over it anyways. The rushed procedure which violated most customary practices for conducting a House impeachment is another deterioration of democracy.
 

RangerRay

Sr. Member
Reaction score
58
Points
330

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
33
Points
530
So despite the desire of the far-right propaganda "news" websites to score an easy win against BLM and/or "The Left" and to sow doubts about the events of 6 Jan, and despite how many conservatives will ultimately disseminate said propaganda without doing any fact-checking or confirmatory research, it would seem that the truth is not as cleanly packaged as professional disinformation peddlers like Charlie Kirk would like.

Below is a 23-part Twitter thread from 26 November from a bona fide far left Seattle-based activist, outing John Sullivan as either a non-aligned anarchist, grifter, crazy person, and/or right-wing agent provocateur:


It's worth noting that this account is almost certainly a grassroots true believer in leftist causes. As their thread from November has now made waves, they've pinned the following tweet to their account stating why they won't cooperate with the FBI:

"We are a team of prison and police abolitionists. While we’ve established our concerns about John’s impact on protester safety, we maintain our stance against state violence and incarceration. We have no interest in celebrating cop shit or making light of a Black man's arrest."

I have read the whole thread as well as the screen capped testimonials from others in that world included in the thread, and don't think it's conclusive as to who John Sullivan actually is based off of the information provided. According to the thread, John Sullivan was blacklisted from both the Salt Lake City and Portland protest "scenes" due to his behaviour. In my mind, though, it doesn't really matter why he was at the Capitol riot on 6 Jan:
  • Is he a far-left extremist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in order to make conservatives look bad? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
  • Is he a true believing anarchist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in an attempt to destabilize the US Government, without a clean left/right political bias? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
  • Is he a right-wing agent provocateur who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in either attempt to support Trump's insurrection and/or to try to make BLM look like they were involved? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
The problem arises when far-right "journalism" intentionally runs half-truths and misinformation in order to score gotcha "He's BLM!" points against "The Left" and drive clicks to their garbage websites, and low-info readers who feel righteous anger reading said articles get conned into sharing and amplifying it without doing any due diligence. As stated by the classic (albeit oft-misattributed) quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on".

Regardless of the details of who this person actually is, the conspiracy theory that 6 Jan was actually an "Antifa" and/or "Deep State" false flag designed to make Trump supporters look bad has grown wings and taken off thanks to social media sharing and the click-generating algorithms of these websites.

Now maybe it wasn't your intent to propagate US conspiracy theories on a Canadian military website, but given your steadfast defence of Trumpism the last few years and the sentence I highlighted in your second quote, "Now to arrest the other 199 and see where the allegiance lay.", it's difficult to read it any other way, even if I'm being polite and generous.
You reading way too much into it. I'm no conspiracy theorist and your attempt to paint me as such is laughable. And you weren't polite. You were trying to be cute and negate me. It was a backhanded attack simply for voicing an opinion you don't agree with. I simply believe at leaving no stone unturned and looking deeper and more thorough. If there was one, there could be more. I didn't say there was though. I put forth no theories on who caused what. My loyalty to Trump has to do with his accomplishments, not his personality. I'm sorry if that's upsetting for you. Attack the message, not the messenger. Anything else is childish clag like intimation I'm a low-info reader who feel righteous anger reading said articles and getting conned into sharing and amplifying it without doing any due diligence. Thanks for that. I know who I'm dealing with now.

Cheers.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
133
Points
680
I'm not going to argue legal procedure, of which you sound like a practitioner. I can only assume that what I see Trump’s lawyers say, is true. I'm pretty sure they can't lie in public to the public, as opposed to faceless, unknowns on the internet giving their opinions as fact. I simply repeated what I've heard them say in press conferences. Far from being sub par, as some state, Giuliani smacked down the Mafia in NY and Powell is no slouch either. Both have argued in front of the Supreme Court. No place for sub par counselors. Anyway, thanks for your insight and I'll look into this more.
For ref, attached the lawsuit one of Trump's lawyers were hit with from NPR. Sidney Powell is being sued for $1.3 BILLION by dominion voting for defamation for spreading 'demonstrably false information'. This is the one were she claimed they rigged the election and Hugo Chavez planned it all (despite dying in 2013). She may have been a big lawyer at one point, but now she's showing her whole ass and looks deranged.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/9548...r-trump-lawyer-seeking-1-3-billion-in-damages

So yeah, they can lie in public like anyone else, and like anyone else there are consequences when they go too far, but they have no inherent obligation to tell the whole truth in a press conference. In this case her insane accusation have resulted in employees of Dominion Voting having their lives threatened directly, as well as things like blowing up the building. That's pretty serious, when they've yet to present zero actual evidence in court, and frequently they've refused to actually repeat the claims in court because the judge could just throw them in jail or have their licence pulled.

Probably varies by state, but people can also file complaints with the Bar association if they really do something crazy (which I believe has happened for both Powell and Guiliani). Unless they lie in court though, they won't be charged with anything. Multiple times they've made pretty big claims in public, then dropped them in court because they didn't want to be charged. The most obvious case that comes to mind is linked below.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/n...inded-of-codes-of-professional-conduct/335669
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
133
Points
680
To me, it sounds like after a proper investigation, and if there is evidence, prosecution may be warranted. I didn’t read any witch-hunt in there.

There is a lot for investigators to work on for the next few months with this putsch.
Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
33
Points
530
For ref, attached the lawsuit one of Trump's lawyers were hit with from NPR. Sidney Powell is being sued for $1.3 BILLION by dominion voting for defamation for spreading 'demonstrably false information'. This is the one were she claimed they rigged the election and Hugo Chavez planned it all (despite dying in 2013). She may have been a big lawyer at one point, but now she's showing her whole ass and looks deranged.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/9548...r-trump-lawyer-seeking-1-3-billion-in-damages

So yeah, they can lie in public like anyone else, and like anyone else there are consequences when they go too far, but they have no inherent obligation to tell the whole truth in a press conference. In this case her insane accusation have resulted in employees of Dominion Voting having their lives threatened directly, as well as things like blowing up the building. That's pretty serious, when they've yet to present zero actual evidence in court, and frequently they've refused to actually repeat the claims in court because the judge could just throw them in jail or have their licence pulled.

Probably varies by state, but people can also file complaints with the Bar association if they really do something crazy (which I believe has happened for both Powell and Guiliani). Unless they lie in court though, they won't be charged with anything. Multiple times they've made pretty big claims in public, then dropped them in court because they didn't want to be charged. The most obvious case that comes to mind is linked below.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/n...inded-of-codes-of-professional-conduct/335669
Quite possible. Although, like the government, big tech companies will often countersue or drag things out to bleed the other side dry. Is that case here? Maybe. All I/ we can do is let it run its course and hope the truth wins out. No matter our hypothesis, this is going to be going on for a long, long time. So I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle about it now. Thanks for the link. It's hard to know who to believe anymore and I think that's a big part of the problem.

Tanks!
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
204
Points
680

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
414
Points
880
Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.
wade wilson marvel GIF
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
289
Points
830
Like the congresswoman that kept live tweeting Pelosi's movements, despite being explicitly told not to by Capitol police? Pretty easy investigation when it's that blatant.
While I have a quite low opinion of Boebert, as I do anyone who drinks the Qool-Aid, she only tweeted one pertinent tweet that I saw, and that was that Pelosi had been removed from the chambers. That would have been a significant and noteworthy thing in an event that brewed up in a matter of minutes. I won't infer ill intent on Boebert's part unless corroborated by anything else. Likely she's simply not security conscious or doesn't have a particularly good head on her shoulders in a crisis. But it's a far cry from, say, revealing where Pelosi (or another prominent/likely target) was brought TO, or where they presently WERE.

What I'm really interested to see follow up on is the allegation that some members of congress gave 'tours' to some of the insurrectionists that may have effectively served as recces. I'm also interested in the allegations that some of the insurrectionists had maps marked with the specific locations of otherwise unnoteworthy offices that belonged to major players in Congress.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
133
Points
680
Quite possible. Although, like the government, big tech companies will often countersue or drag things out to bleed the other side dry. Is that case here? Maybe. All I/ we can do is let it run its course and hope the truth wins out. No matter our hypothesis, this is going to be going on for a long, long time. So I'm not going to get wrapped around the axle about it now. Thanks for the link. It's hard to know who to believe anymore and I think that's a big part of the problem.

Tanks!
No worries, I get it. There is a lot of insanity, and I tend to start at not believing anyone, checking receipts, and reading both sides (or more) of the arguments to figure things out for myself. I see equally insane comments under news articles pretty much anywhere, but weirdly find Al-Jazeera to frequently be fairly non-partisan.

In this particular case I don't think it's the case of the big tech company sueing her to bleed her dry; I'm sure the whole news conference is posted unedited in a few spots and the claims are genuinely nuts. Judge for yourself of course, but she legitimately said that Dominion rigged the election somehow under the direction of Hugo Chavez, who died well before Trump got into politics. The whole thing was crazy.

Pretty massive figure, but as the entire business relies on customer trust, which she blew out of the water while reprenting POTUS, probably not as inflated as it seems (relative to how the US lawsuits work). If I remember correctly, Trump dropped her as a lawyer shortly after this (for a few days anyway).

She had made the claims in a few suits, but they were dismissed by the judges because they didn't provide any actual evidence. Linked to a Forbes article below, but if you search for the individual cases the full judgements should be posted somewhere. The ones I browsed through were really pretty brutal, and that was from a selection of Democratic and conservative Republican judges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...suit-gets-shut-down-in-court/?sh=12e44b781f88
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
33
Points
530

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
33
Points
530
No worries, I get it. There is a lot of insanity, and I tend to start at not believing anyone, checking receipts, and reading both sides (or more) of the arguments to figure things out for myself. I see equally insane comments under news articles pretty much anywhere, but weirdly find Al-Jazeera to frequently be fairly non-partisan.

In this particular case I don't think it's the case of the big tech company sueing her to bleed her dry; I'm sure the whole news conference is posted unedited in a few spots and the claims are genuinely nuts. Judge for yourself of course, but she legitimately said that Dominion rigged the election somehow under the direction of Hugo Chavez, who died well before Trump got into politics. The whole thing was crazy.

Pretty massive figure, but as the entire business relies on customer trust, which she blew out of the water while reprenting POTUS, probably not as inflated as it seems (relative to how the US lawsuits work). If I remember correctly, Trump dropped her as a lawyer shortly after this (for a few days anyway).

She had made the claims in a few suits, but they were dismissed by the judges because they didn't provide any actual evidence. Linked to a Forbes article below, but if you search for the individual cases the full judgements should be posted somewhere. The ones I browsed through were really pretty brutal, and that was from a selection of Democratic and conservative Republican judges.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...suit-gets-shut-down-in-court/?sh=12e44b781f88
Not to beat a dead horse, but I thought she said the system was designed around Chávez's instruction and had been in use since that time. Meh, like I say, time will tell. I'm not getting worked up about it and will wait til it hits court.

Cheers
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
133
Points
680
While I have a quite low opinion of Boebert, as I do anyone who drinks the Qool-Aid, she only tweeted one pertinent tweet that I saw, and that was that Pelosi had been removed from the chambers. That would have been a significant and noteworthy thing in an event that brewed up in a matter of minutes. I won't infer ill intent on Boebert's part unless corroborated by anything else. Likely she's simply not security conscious or doesn't have a particularly good head on her shoulders in a crisis. But it's a far cry from, say, revealing where Pelosi (or another prominent/likely target) was brought TO, or where they presently WERE.

What I'm really interested to see follow up on is the allegation that some members of congress gave 'tours' to some of the insurrectionists that may have effectively served as recces. I'm also interested in the allegations that some of the insurrectionists had maps marked with the specific locations of otherwise unnoteworthy offices that belonged to major players in Congress.
For context though, she had previously tweeted 'today is 1776' (ie the start of the American Revolution) and when she tweeted that the Senate was sealed and the speaker was removed there were crowds in the building chanting 'Where is Nancy'. At the very least, that should be investigated IMHO, especially if they were given direction not to tweet anything by the police after it started.

The tours and other allegations are definitely alarming; read a report that one office had the silent alarm system ripped out from under the desk. After seeing videos of the police letting protestors through barriers, really not surprised. Given that one of their colleagues died, hoping that gets genuinely looked at and not swept under the rug as it sounds like they have a bunch of serious security holes and need a purge in their police force.

I'm not a proponent of some kind of McCarthy witch hunt, but holy sh*t, there are some things you just can't let slide.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
86
Points
530
So, you're saying PM is fake news? I suppose that makes the FBI affidavit fake also?

We've had this discussion a hundred times here. Someone cites a source and someone that just wants to ridicule the poster and source, pops up and does just that, because they are too lazy to defend it properly with sources from their own Big Media. Sad really.
Did I say fake news? checks post nope. It wasn't a comment on the news it was a comment on your choice of news sources using humour. I'm no Charlie Hebdo (see what I did there?) but one tries.

I have standards for news media that isn't an unofficial mouthpiece for one side or the other. One's news should challenge your opinion not conform with it.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
32
Points
530
'today is 1776' (ie the start of the American Revolution

Just shows how much history she knows: The official start date of the American Revolution is April 19, 1775, date of the Lexington and Concord militia action. Though some have said it should go back even further, either to the Boston Tea Party in 1773 or even the Boston Massacre of 1770.

In any event 1776 is the year of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by Congress - and come to think of it, she may know her history and was referring to that instead of the war of independence.
 
Top