A true narrative of the day

quote:

Jonathan Turley:
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt,

what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed.

The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol,

And yes, Trump did propose the NG be at the Capitol ahead of time.

The failure and responsibility was Trump’s.

Keep lying about Pelosi.

Regardless of who may be at fault for the National Guard not being present beforehand, once the violence ensued, it was Trump who failed to act to stop it. You can bloviate all you want but as CIC he absolutely had the authority and ability to restore order. He did before at Lafayette Square. He did not want to restore order.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
A true narrative of the day

quote:

Jonathan Turley:
Liberal politicians and pundits often refer to multiple deaths from the Jan. 6th riot. In reality, only one person died that day, and that was Babbitt,

what occurred on Jan. 6th was a disgrace. However, it was a riot, not an insurrection. (It was certainly not an act of terrorism as claimed by some Democratic politicians). A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions, a failure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi privately admitted but only recently was disclosed.

The failure of Pelosi and others to properly prepare for the protest, despite the offer of President Donald Trump of 10,000 National Guard troops, does not excuse the conduct of the rioters who attacked the Capitol,

And yes, Trump did propose the NG be at the Capitol ahead of time.

So, would Trump have asked them to beat back his followers and defend the police, or seize voting machines?

And, while we are chewing this rag, if rioters were scuffling with the police in your town, how should the mayor respond?

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
Regardless of who may be at fault for the National Guard not being present beforehand, once the violence ensued, it was Trump who failed to act to stop it. You can bloviate all you want but as CIC he absolutely had the authority and ability to restore order. He did before at Lafayette Square. He did not want to restore order.

The only thing going through his mind was, "They're doing THAT FOR ME?"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...e9d877e198a65f&ei=25

Trump's election ended Jack Smith's tenure. But he still has one more important job to do

In George Orwell’s classic depiction of an authoritarian society, “Nineteen Eighty-four,” a key component of political control is the state’s erasure of history: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten … every date has been altered. … After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains.”

That is the state of affairs Donald Trump would like to produce with respect to the federal cases against him, which special counsel Jack Smith has developed in painstaking detail over the last two years.

Given Trump’s impending return to the White House, Smith now has two months to wrap up his cases. The primary question left for him and the Justice Department’s leadership is whether to produce a report of the Jan. 6 and classified documents cases and, if so, what it should look like.

The special counsel regulations that govern Smith require him to provide a confidential report to Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland explaining his decisions for or against prosecution. Garland has already made it clear that if he gets a report from Smith, he will exercise his discretion to make it public.

Given what Smith and other prosecutors have described as the “unprecedented circumstances” of the defendant’s election, the regulatory prescription is an imperfect fit. Smith obviously decided to bring charges against Trump in both cases and likely prepared a prosecution memo at the time explaining his thinking to Garland and others. But political events force him to close up shop in the midst of those prosecutions.

So what considerations should guide his and the department’s thinking about the preparation and content of a report?

First and foremost, the public interest dictates that we have the fullest possible historical account of what happened, which is a recognized justification for special counsel reports. Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, for instance, declined to charge then-President Trump but provided a detailed and damning account of his findings that ultimately became public.

Smith has developed extensive evidence of truly grievous crimes, the worst ever allegedly committed by a president. The core of the Jan. 6 case is a breathtaking effort to exhort supporters to commit an insurrection and prevent the peaceful transfer of power, the sine qua non of a democracy. And the classified documents case presents probably the gravest violation of national security by a president, augmented by an extended and brazen campaign of obstruction of justice to impede the return of government property that Trump had no right to possess.

In my mind, the need for a detailed report on the latter is greater. The House Jan. 6 committee developed a detailed public record of the plot that culminated in the insurrection. Moreover, the Justice Department’s filings in the Jan. 6 case, especially its lengthy brief explaining the evidence it intended to present and why it was not foreclosed by the Supreme Court immunity decision, also left the public with a detailed account of Trump’s conduct.

No such public account exists in the documents case. That’s because U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has made a series of dubious rulings that have disrupted the department’s presentation. One of them, dismissing the case on the fringe theory that Smith was not properly appointed as special counsel, is pending before the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The holes in the historical account are significant. What was Trump’s purported justification for spiriting the documents away to his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago? How did he store them? Could they have been seen by foreign adversaries? Did he in fact show them to anyone, as the evidence that has become public suggests? And how did he and his co-defendants, Mar-a-Lago staff members Carlos De Oliveira and Walt Nauta, conspire to resist the government’s lawful demands to return the documents?

Trump and his circle are already adopting the stance that the election provided a decisive mandate for nullifying the prosecutions. We can be certain that when he takes the reins of government, he will have no compunction about destroying every last shred of information about them. In the style of Orwell’s Big Brother, he will likely try to scrub the pages of history of his misdeeds.

That would be a travesty and a rank disservice to the American people and history.

Trump’s argument for popular nullification doesn’t hold water in the first place. Far short of securing some decisive mandate, Trump appears to have received less than 50% of the vote, edging out Vice President Kamala Harris by one of the smallest popular-vote margins in history. Moreover, there is scant evidence that his winning coalition was moved by objections to the cases against him.

Not that it would matter if they were. History is not a plebiscite in which 50% of the current population decides what’s true and important. An accurate historical account is an independent value of a free society. That’s especially true in cases of heated disagreement about what happened. From that vantage point, it would be in the interest even of Trump and his co-defendants to have a full public record available.

One strong case for the importance of an accurate historical record of contentious, searing events was offered by the 9/11 Commission. The report it produced, as the commission noted, was essential for historical understanding, preventing the spread of misinformation, reforming national security and readiness, and maintaining public confidence in government.

All of these goals should be articles of faith in a democratic society. But it seems increasingly clear that this is not the sort of society Trump intends to foster. If he gets his way, history’s record of his crimes will be replaced by blank pages.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:


[QUOTE]A protest at the Capitol resulted in a complete breakdown of the inadequate security precautions,......

Why did there need to be any security precautions?

If those present that day were really Loyal Americans, if the MAGA folks and Trump supporters attending the event were patriots why was there any possibility or thought about violence, riot and looting?

If I showed up at the Capitol for an event I'd require nothing more than a Capitol intern passing out maps and pointing a finger towards the water fountain .

The blame is only on the "mostly peaceful protesters" engaged in "mostly trespassing".

The failure of the Capitol Police that day was in not doing a whole lot more shooting.

https://www.google.com/imgres?...994&shem=abme%2Ctrie

Everyone in this photo richly deserved a bullet.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/iHEU4PVg17VJhfoLA

Cops should have been using shotguns with buckshot.

Most Americans feel Obiden and his SOROS backed Dems created voter fraud and they did not win the 2020 election. Say what you want the people have spoken. I stayed up till 3AM watching the election results. Trump was completely in the lead, they called him the winner. Five or eight hours later they supposedly found a whole new batch of uncounted ballots. REALLY? That is what caused the riots, nothing else. If I was Trump I wouldn’t lay down to the corruption either. Now we are finally going to see the truth. March on you WOKE SOROS Dems who fraudulently believe you won the 2020 election.

quote:

Originally posted by 4WD:
Most Americans feel Obiden and his SOROS backed Dems created voter fraud and they did not win the 2020 election. Say what you want the people have spoken. I stayed up till 3AM watching the election results. Trump was completely in the lead, they called him the winner. Five or eight hours later they supposedly found a whole new batch of uncounted ballots. REALLY? That is what caused the riots, nothing else. If I was Trump I wouldn’t lay down to the corruption either. Now we are finally going to see the truth. March on you WOKE SOROS Dems who fraudulently believe you won the 2020 election.

Beating on the cops is inexcusable in most towns, large and small.
The place for that push-back is in the courts, where it failed in 60 cases.
Speaking of statistics, 60 out of 61 is a big percentage...

Granted that our news is heavily managed, but the scale of fraud that's proposed would be kind of hard to hide.

This thread has the perfect title for this news:

quote:

WASHINGTON - Today, the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) sent a letter to Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) Robert Storch, demanding a correction of the DoD's factually inaccurate January 6 report, as first reported by The Federalist.

After a thorough investigation, the Subcommittee uncovered evidence substantiating that the Department of Defense intentionally delayed the deployment of the D.C. National Guard to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In addition, the DoD IG concealed the extent and cause of the delay to protect Department of Defense and Pentagon leadership. The Subcommittee found multiple instances where the DoD IG failed to disclose evidence that contradicted the DoD IG's erroneous conclusion.

The DoD IG’s report reflects an alarming failure to adequately evaluate the actions of senior DoD officials, including Secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, who failed to communicate deployment orders to Major General William Walker, the Commander of the DCNG on January 6.

Link

All the lies about Pelosi being at fault can now be retired.

They are refuted by Federal Law and the Constitution.

quote:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who was House speaker at the time, had also objected to the National Guard’s preemptive deployment multiple time due to the “optics” of additional federal troops in the capital.

DOD ‘Intentionally Delayed’ National Guard Deployment To The Capitol On Jan. 6

Give it rest. Who was the CIC? Did he order the Guard in or not??

And who really gives a shit? It's over and done. There were no heroes on that day. Certainly not the CIC. Regards, Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
And who really gives a shit? It's over and done. There were no heroes on that day. Certainly not the CIC. Regards, Bill

Bill, there's no Statute of Limitations

on treason.

Again, if we allow ours to engage in criminal behavior just because they are on our side, our opposition will do the same and more.

A standard needs to, has to be set. Obviously in the Trump era the standard or line in the sand has been erased I believe that when the other side is back in power we will suffer the lack of standards and consequences we have allowed.

Here's something to think about:

Some have said the cops should have shot more people who did violent things that day.

We have wondered why they used such restraint.

There is an example in history where there were more deaths, and looking at it now, the consequences are predictable.

https://www.newsweek.com/rober...rump-fascist-1560652

I've Hesitated to Call Donald Trump a Fascist. Until Now | Opinion
Robert O. Paxton
On 1/11/21 at 5:13 PM EST

Here's the excerpt from the article:

Trump's incitement of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2020 removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line. The label now seems not just acceptable but necessary. It is made even more plausible by comparison with a milestone on Europe's road to fascism—an openly fascist demonstration in Paris during the night of February 6, 1934.

On that evening thousands of French veterans of World War I, bitter at rumors of corruption in a parliament already discredited by its inefficacy against the Great Depression, attempted to invade the French parliament chamber, just as the deputies were voting yet another shaky government into power. The veterans had been summoned by right-wing organizations. They made no secret of their wish to replace what they saw as a weak parliamentary government with a fascist dictatorship on the model of Hitler or Mussolini.

Unlike the demonstrators in Washington on January 6, the French demonstrators of February 6, 1934 did not succeed in penetrating the parliament building. But the outcome was much graver. The French government, fearing that the demonstrators, crossing the bridge leading from the Place de la Concorde, were going to break in to the Chamber, authorized the police to shoot. Fifteen demonstrators and one policeman were killed. The French Third Republic had blood on its hands. The ensuing bitter division helps explain why the French prepared only haltingly before 1940 for Hitler's attack, and why the French defeat of June led to the replacement of the Third Republic with the authoritarian Vichy regime.

Curiously, it seems the Washington demonstrators' success at breaching the Capitol gives them less support in American society today than the unsuccessful French demonstrators of February 1934 acquired in their country. In France, elections in June 1936 had a highly contested outcome: the installation of a Jew and a Socialist, Leon Blum, as the French Prime Minister. French fascists remained active opponents of Blum until opportunity came for them again in June 1940 with Hitler's defeat of the French Army, and the replacement of the French parliamentary republic with the authoritarian Vichy regime.

In the United States, after the ignominious failure of a shocking fascist attempt to undo Biden's election, the new American President can begin his work of healing on January 20. Despite encouraging early signs and the relative robustness of American institutions , it's too soon for a responsible historian to say whether he'll be more successful in sustaining our Republic than European leaders were in defending theirs. (We all know how that worked out)

Robert O. Paxton is a professor emeritus of social sciences at Columbia University and the author of many books, including the widely translated The Anatomy of Fascism

I see your point. However, beyond the elector scheme and pressure to find votes, there has never been any evidence presented that Trump acted in concert w Jan 6 violence or perpetrators of that violence. At best, he motivated and set back to see if it would help him in his elector scheme.

Hence my observations about him above.

His call to suspend the Constitution not withstanding. That read in isolation of some larger political goal can be read as purely authoritarian. I would not read it in such isolation.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
And who really gives a shit? It's over and done. There were no heroes on that day. Certainly not the CIC. Regards, Bill

Bill, there's no Statute of Limitations

on treason.

Again, if we allow ours to engage in criminal behavior just because they are on our side, our opposition will do the same and more.

A standard needs to, has to be set. Obviously in the Trump era the standard or line in the sand has been erased I believe that when the other side is back in power we will suffer the lack of standards and consequences we have allowed.

While there may be no statute of limitations on treason, there should be some limitation to the amount of time and money a nation wants to waste to try and prove a point. Trump is not going to be found guilty of treason, sedition, or even inciting to riot. The constant harping on it will accomplish nothing except to expose the stupidity being displayed by both sides. Meanwhile, schools still suck, illegal immigration is unchecked, prices of essentials continue to climb. Real criminals live on our streets.
Keeping Jan. 6th at the forefront of our concerns is no different than the constant sniveling done by the right about the "stolen election". It's unprovable and counterproductive. In combination, the fixation on these two aspects of recent American politics, will do more damage to the nation than anything since the Vietnam war. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
I see your point. However, beyond the elector scheme and pressure to find votes, there has never been any evidence presented that Trump acted in concert w Jan 6 violence or perpetrators of that violence. At best, he motivated and set back to see if it would help him in his elector scheme.

Hence my observations about him above.

His call to suspend the Constitution not withstanding. That read in isolation of some larger political goal can be read as purely authoritarian. I would not read it in such isolation.

"I would not read it in such isolation."

That applies to the whole scope. No part should be isolated from the whole.

There are many clues.

On at least two occasions Trump has referred to the rioters who broke into the Capitol as "WE". It's subtle but he clearly IDs with them, and reciprocally.

During the speech on 1/6 Trump referred to Pence not having the "courage". Hence the "hang Mike Pence" chant.

Both Trump and Pence knew how Pence fit into the scheme. So did Mark Meadows and others. Why do you think Pence refused to get into the SS car and leave the Capitol? He knew that if he did leave, the riot would be successful and Trump, Meadows, etc. could then move to the next stage of the plan to intro fake electors to congress. Also, it's highly probable that the man in charge of the SS who tasked the driver of the car to fetch Pence away from the capitol was serving Trump's goal.

This thread, titled "reality check" is clearly an alt-reality, alt-narrative utterly and completely based in Trump's lies, which are strategic in flipping the script. They should NEVER be called anything but what they are: Fascist plot lies. And the stunning thing is they worked, despite the evidence.

Here are a couple of videos:

https://youtu.be/i2w_qra6srU?si=LsZNkhAOHZ451i5q
‘I had nothing to do’ with Jan. 6 riot, Trump says | ABC Presidential Debate

https://youtu.be/ze7YZx_GT3A?si=mTZozfGr_llx_aly
'I Don't Effing Care That They Have Weapons': Trump Allegedly Said Of Capitol Rioters On Jan 6th

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
And who really gives a shit? It's over and done. There were no heroes on that day. Certainly not the CIC. Regards, Bill

Bill, there's no Statute of Limitations

on treason.

Again, if we allow ours to engage in criminal behavior just because they are on our side, our opposition will do the same and more.

A standard needs to, has to be set. Obviously in the Trump era the standard or line in the sand has been erased I believe that when the other side is back in power we will suffer the lack of standards and consequences we have allowed.

While there may be no statute of limitations on treason, there should be some limitation to the amount of time and money a nation wants to waste to try and prove a point. Trump is not going to be found guilty of treason, sedition, or even inciting to riot. The constant harping on it will accomplish nothing except to expose the stupidity being displayed by both sides. Meanwhile, schools still suck, illegal immigration is unchecked, prices of essentials continue to climb. Real criminals live on our streets.
Keeping Jan. 6th at the forefront of our concerns is no different than the constant sniveling done by the right about the "stolen election". It's unprovable and counterproductive. In combination, the fixation on these two aspects of recent American politics, will do more damage to the nation than anything since the Vietnam war. Regards, Bill.

Well said Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
Keeping Jan. 6th at the forefront of our concerns is no different than the constant sniveling done by the right about the "stolen election". It's unprovable and counterproductive. In combination, the fixation on these two aspects of recent American politics, will do more damage to the nation than anything since the Vietnam war. Regards, Bill.

That's kinda interesting.

Damage to the nation... Hummm

The USA has a new theme song: I fought the law, and I won.

The "fixation" is on lies, disinformation, false narratives, spin, and with the help of Fox News, etc. lies won. One of the fundamentals of fascism is to control or dominate the narratives and the press. It's clear to see that narratives such as in the OP won the election. They are not true, and the mission of the winners is to make such narratives truth (reality). That is against one of the core values of the resistance.

So, which is damaging -- the false narratives or the resistance?

Effectively, with Trump's win, the slightly greater half, not better half, has voted the nation past the threshold of authoritarianism, and the barriers are weak to contain its advance. BTW, it's a fact that so-deemed conservative think tanks and other orgs and politicians have been working for years to weaken the barriers or at least shift them in their favor to achieve an agenda. It has finally culminated. It's foolish to think they won't take full advantage of this opportunity.

Whatever supposed barriers to a populist demagogue lying authoritarian gaining a grip on the nation were inadequate. Why would anyone assume the same Founder's barriers would block his and his supporters' fulfillment of their mission?

Did you know that Fox News claims over 78% of the prime-time viewership now. That's with a reported decline in ratings for all so-deemed liberal news. And Musk is eyeing MSNBC.

So, is the "damage" self-inflicted or induced or both. It seems weird somehow to think that truth itself is damaging when in my view the rejection of truth is the culprit. Since everything with Trump(ism) seems inverted, I'm wondering what is the cause and effect, or effect and cause?

Well then, by all means, let's concentrate on prosecuting Trump and Trump supporters, rather than cleaning our own house and trying to find solutions to our many problems. Rather than dealing with homeless camps and drug addiction, let's worry about the bias of Fox News (CNN is, of course, unbiased).
The fixation is on being judged as correct. The fixation is on making sure "my side" is perceived as being right.
So, Trump gets away with a bunch of shit. The old prick will be dead soon enough. Nonetheless, there will still be people focused on what happened on Jan. 6th. Just as there will still be people focused on Hunter's laptop. Should Trump have been allowed to run? I don't think so, but he was. Now, we have to deal with the result of the election. Whining about 2020 isn't going to move the country forward. It isn't going to fix the problems in the middle east or in Europe. Does anyone honestly believe that constantly harping about J6 is the best way to defend against any negative effects of a Trump presidency? Does anyone honestly think the best way to deal with inflation is to keep poking fun at old Joe?
Joe is on his way out. Trump will provide plenty of opportunity to oppose him and his policies. Or, we can concentrate on J6. The drug and crime problems will take care of themselves. Regards, Bill.

I see your point Bill.

And I agree with you to great extent. I don't see why we can't include both our suggestions. They are not mutually exclusive IMO.

The "problem" is the OP makes it clear that it's important to dominate the narratives, the revisionist, as an essential part of success. Trump won, but does his alt-reality win also?

It's also a backdrop on what's coming. Being in reality is essential when evaluating what's about to happen. However, OTOH, to the extent you are correct - "being in reality" wasn't worth much thus far insofar as Trump's rise, or what happened.

It's not about prosecuting Trump or supporters anymore. It's about the old saying that winners write the history books. That's why the report Jack Smith is writing is important for public knowledge. Do you think there is any way Trump would allow such report to become public knowledge if he could thwart it?

I can't imagine giving up, as you suggest. But maybe it's best. But not yet.

https://youtu.be/Bex5LyzbbBE?si=1tpGDiti6ElcdRjQ

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think that any attempt at revising the facts is pure bullshit too. When I say it is time to move on, I believe that applies to both sides of the coin. One side cries, "Stolen election". The other side hollers back, "January 6th". One side sneers, "Hunter's laptop". The other side comes back with, "He screwed a stripper". How is that for productive?
Both sides sneer at the concept of accepting history for what it is (or was). Instead, choosing to revise it to say what they want to hear.
I hope Trump avoids getting trapped in the quagmire of petty revenge and opts to serve the Nation instead of himself. I do hope he looks at serious approaches to dealing with some of the many problems the country is facing. Personally, I think he's a clown, but it's plain the current administration has no answers. Maybe the next one will. We certainly need some. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:

And who really gives a shit? It's over and done.

While there may be no statute of limitations on treason, there should be some limitation to the amount of time and money a nation wants to waste to try and prove a point.

Bill, these two above from you particularly stick out to me.

FWIW, I give a shit that 140 police officers were assaulted at and inside our Capitol. I give a shit that someone put their feet up on the desk of the Speaker of the House. I give a shit that these criminals are made and example of and this kind of stunt never happens again.

If we're to limit the amount of time and money our nation wasted to try and prove a point, perhaps you think our time/ money/ effort after 9/11 was and is a waste. Maybe by 2004 we should have just said "oh well, to heck with it!".

I don't get what you don't get. Our enemies, both foreign and domestic learn from history. The Islamic terrorists have learned over and over that the West is far more concerned with appeasing bruised feelings and Introducing Democracy than it is in destroying its enemy and so with enough time they win over and over and over.

Our foreign and domestic enemies as of January 6th now have a blueprint of how the Capitol can actually be seized and sonofagun! a portion of the American public can be swayed to support it. You are lying to yourself if you think America's enemies aren't taking notes regarding the dismissal and excuses made for January 6th.

I do care that the riots occurred. I do think it should not have happened. However, by now it has been relegated to the status of distorted history.
Yes, I do believe much of our time, money, and effort were wasted after 9/11, BTW. Our government still lies to us. People tasked with our security are still too busy empire building to do their job.
Is it your contention that internal squabbling, such as what we are seeing now, will cause Islamic terrorists to sit up and say, "These westerners are serious. They mean business."? We do need to get our house in order, but it seems unlikely that this is the way we do it. Donald Trump, although it seems impossible, is the President once again. That is the reality of the situation. How we deal with that reality is yet to be determined. Again, I don't think dwelling on the last eight years will be the answer. Plainly, others do. Could be that I'm wrong. Regards, Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Leeper:
I do care that the riots occurred. I do think it should not have happened. However, by now it has been relegated to the status of distorted history.
Yes, I do believe much of our time, money, and effort were wasted after 9/11, BTW. Our government still lies to us. People tasked with our security are still too busy empire building to do their job.
Is it your contention that internal squabbling, such as what we are seeing now, will cause Islamic terrorists to sit up and say, "These westerners are serious. They mean business."? We do need to get our house in order, but it seems unlikely that this is the way we do it. Donald Trump, although it seems impossible, is the President once again. That is the reality of the situation. How we deal with that reality is yet to be determined. Again, I don't think dwelling on the last eight years will be the answer. Plainly, others do. Could be that I'm wrong. Regards, Bill.

Bill, simply put, i believe if our federal government would have responded to the Taliban and Al Queda after 9/11 as the enemies they were, no more no less, we'd not be in the suicidal quagmire we are today. Because we responded with care, concern, feelings and Introducing Democracy Islamic terrorists around the globe do not fear us and our reprisals. We built a pier to deliver aid to Hamas FFS.

I believe if our federal government would have responded to the attackers on January 6th as the violent criminals they were, no more or less, we'd not be in the domestic suicidal quagmire we are today. Because we responded with understanding, sympathy, leniency and outright bury our heads in the sand denial, terrorist both foreign and domestic do not fear us or our reprisals.

I'll remind you that Americans were chanting, "death to America!" this last year in Michigan. The Boston Bombers were Americans. You really need to see that we've provided a blueprint for success in the effort to plant pressure cooker bombs in our halls of government.

Law and Order, The Rule of Law is non political. The harsh use of punitive force should not recognize race, creed, color, religion nor partisanship.

This video is the most disgusting:

https://youtu.be/1PW3fuQl1C0?si=NNAqHTS6OKrjwQDN

second most disgusting:

https://youtube.com/shorts/9Xw...?si=7mSrfOqbI7eyLHcX

Tied for second:

https://youtu.be/klPeYrlInZQ?si=zJhn1CKmhc1cLmkX

Remember: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis

=========================================================

It is impossible to love country as a patriot and also hate the rule of law (lawfare), the opposition press (called enemies of the people), the opposition people (called vermin and the enemy within), the "system" (aka the constitution and election process and outcome), and pursue a plan to take it all down (project 2025 authoritarian manifesto's goal called the second American Revolution which will be bloodless if the Left allows it.)

========================================================

However, that's what won the election for Trump.

That's why the narrative is so important to revisionists.

It's also why it's important to realists.

I agree with everything you said. However, I also believe we cannot go back to Afghanistan to try and make it right, and we can't go back to Jan 6th either. Going forward, we can try and do better, but going forward is what we should be doing. Of course, part of going forward should have included recognizing the role of the Instigator-in-Chief but that didn't happen either and, here we are. Bill

quote:

Of course, part of going forward should have included recognizing the role of the Instigator-in-Chief but that didn't happen either and, here we are.

We DID recognize it, and we ARE moving forward. The "WE" I'm talking about recognize that the fight now is who wins the narratives. The 1/6 committee and Jack Smith and much of the news recognized what happened and Trump's role in it. The fact is that Trump won anyway, both the lawfare and the election. The question is: was that despite or because or both? It was largely due to narratives and beliefs.

There is a concept:

stream of con·scious·ness
noun Psychology
a person's thoughts and conscious reactions to events, perceived as a continuous flow. The term was introduced by William James in his Principles of Psychology (1890).

There is a national stream of consciousness.

And within that is a contest over reality, cause and effect, means and outcomes.

In my view you are suggesting that the national stream of consciousness be broken or interrupted. Well, that ain't gonna happen.

============================================

Not to divert, but to include something I consider relevant:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...bb2ebcf312906&ei=114

Migrants on march to US: Trump doesn't scare us

Some 1,500 migrants marched in southern Mexico on Thursday (November 21), hoping to reach the country's border with the U.S. in search of the American dream.

====================
Many of these migrants hiked across the Darian Gap, a formidable journey.
====================

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c8E?ocid=socialshare

Putin ordered to retake Kursk region before Trump's inauguration - Zelenskyy
Story by Oleksandra Zimko • 20h • 2 min read

This is in anticipation of Trump giving Putin the territory he occupies in Ukraine. Of course, Trump doesn't have the unilateral authority to do that, but he has the POWER to do it by his normal means - threats and coercion including towards congress and NATO, spreading mis/disinformation, lies, withholding, etc. Trump knows, perhaps better than anyone, the power of narratives.

=========================================

My point is that Trump has prolonged the border crisis and the war in Ukraine due to nixing the bi-partisan border legislation and by promising to end the Russia/Ukraine conflict by giving Putin what he wants.

Here's something to help with my points. The republican tether to reality is rather thin and intangible, not corroborated with facts and evidence. They can't help that, but they can bolster it through narratives, much of which Trump and Fox take advantage of.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
How The Narrative Flips
When you squeak out a win

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...f5386c4b4cf825a&ei=8

Also:

https://www.briefingbook.info/...mplification-and-the

Asymmetric amplification and the consumer sentiment gap
How excess Republican partisanship contributes to the gap between economic fundamentals and consumer views on the economy

ME to a “T”

quote:

Here's something to help with understanding where I come from with my points. The republican My tether to reality is rather thin and intangible, not corroborated with facts and evidence. They I can't help that, but they I can bolster it through narratives , much of which Trump and Fox take advantage of I garner from bullshit left wing propaganda much of which comes straight from 21st century MSM. .

Lane, I'm going to continue this conversation by introducing a thought and question. It's early morning here, so it's not the time to get too deep. Perhaps later.

The premise: Jan 6, 2021 was an inflection point or turning point, a prelude to the inflection point of the POTUS election of DJT in November 2024.

It was not pre-destined.

What was the cause and effect? Granted, we don't know the full effect yet. We just know that Trump was elected and has plans and lots of help.

What significance does belief in fiction play in those inflection points?

Jan 6, 2021 was not an inflection point. It was the rejection of an arbitrarily imposed abutment of a probationary inflection point.

The true or at least probationary inflection point of America came in Nov of 2008. It gained some traction, enough to scare the traditional. That probationary inflection point was tentatively rejected in 2016 and again in 2020.

Nov 5, 2024 was the referendum clarifying for all to see that this probationary inflection point was dead and America would resume a more traditional posture.

quote:

probationary inflection point

I looked that up to see if there was some definition of that three-word term. Then I tried just two-word combo - probationary inflection. I didn't find any definitions three-word or two-word combo. I refreshed my memory of probationary definitions. I already did that with inflection point or turning point, to be sure I used the terms correctly.

So, I presume you are starting a linier series of inflection point(s) with the election of Obama. I can see your point with those dots connected. It shocked you so much with a nigrow in the WH that the linier progression for you and others led to Trump's election in 2016 and 2024.

I also agree with you that Nov. 5, 2024 was a national referendum of clarification for all to see.

"See" is a big word for just three letters:

Def: "See, the most general, can mean merely to use the faculty of sight but more often implies recognition, understanding, or appreciation: "If I have seen further (than ... Descartes) it is by standing upon the shoulders of Giants" (Isaac Newton)."

See could also mean shocking realization, or see the light, an idiom.

Def: "If someone sees the light, they realize or understand something, often something that makes them change wrong or unpleasant behaviour or opinions."

The way you use the word "see" is affirmation as in "see, I told you so". What affirmation do you "see"? You said it: "inflection point (as you see it) was dead and America would resume a more traditional posture".

Which bring me to my point. You say, "traditional posture". hummm. That could mean several things - white man POTUS maybe. I left out the word conservative because IMO Trump is not conservative.

But let's focus on the term/idea "Traditional Posture" and connect the "see the light" idea with a third idea, which is the belief in fiction .

I'll state my premise up front, then support it. The inflection point is because the nation has never experienced a situation where half the population voted in affirmation of belief in fiction. That's not "traditional posture" and it's antithesis to tradition and founding principles.

I suppose the "belief in fiction" could string all the way back to Trump's birther lies, maybe further back and include other lies back then. But I'm starting the linier string at the BIG LIE and belief thereof.

There is no doubt that the attempt by Trump and co-conspirators to thwart the election results 2020 was tied to a BIG LIE, and culminated with the invasion of the capitol specifically intended to prevent on that day the traditional transfer of power. It was facilitated with pseudo-legal plans outlined, alt-electors, by attorneys like Guiliani, Eastman, (both lost their license) MAGA Mike, Mark Meadows, Gym Jordon, etc. It was also facilitated by Fox News who paid nearly $800 settlement for lying.

Yet, Trump supporters believed the fiction Trump spun on everything, accentuated by sycophants.

Every step of the way, every investigation and report, every grand jury indictment, every conviction, every civil case, all were defeated with fiction which was believed over the facts and reality. On each occasion, Trump gained support based entirely on the spin and belief in the lies.

When the clarity of all that is seen, the shock should be commensurate. The fact is that Trump was elected based in Belief in Fiction. The scale of it isn't traditional.

Yet some herein say we should just move on, it can't be proven or whatever. We are going to "move on" alright and "it", what Trump did and the belief in his manufactured fiction, are sufficiently proven. We are going to move on as a nation carrying the baggage named Belief in Fiction. We have already seen consequences, but I think believers and non-believers of the Fiction are in denial as to what that really means. They don't "see" it.

When you have and live in a nation where the Belief in Fiction, of the sort that Trump(ism) generates perpetually and feeds on itself, it's a toxic well-spring. Calling it Traditional is perverted.

It could be argued that the Founding principles, the constitution, etc., were based in the Belief in Fiction. They made it up then it became reality through collective belief and cooperation. But they didn't lie as a tool.

Trump and trumpsters made it all up and so far they have made it reality, but they lied as a tool, and believed them.

Frankly, that's the BIG difference in the founding of a democratic republic, democracy, and the transition to a fascist regime.

quote:

the nation has never experienced a situation where half the population voted in affirmation of belief in fiction.

Null hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

the nation has never experienced a situation where half the population voted in affirmation of belief in fiction.

Null hypothesis.

A hypothesis is validated through facts and evidence.

The antithesis I have outlined, the toxic well, is validated (exists) through belief in fiction.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...99415620e9d2b9&ei=13

What Sen. Mike Lee doesn’t understand about Jack Smith’s cases

For special counsel Jack Smith and his prosecutorial team, Donald Trump’s election victory meant one thing: They would have little choice but to wrap up their ongoing criminal cases against the Republican president-elect. It wasn’t because they lacked evidence against the defendant, it was because the Justice Department has a longstanding policy that says a sitting president can’t be prosecuted.

With this in mind, Smith and his office began taking steps to dismiss the charges they brought against Trump before his inauguration. The developments, however, appear to have generated some confusion in GOP circles. The New York Times reported:

The line was unintentionally amusing. On midday Monday, The Washington Post’s Philip Bump wrote online, “A good test of how dumb someone is is if they claim that Smith’s motion proves that the charges were politically motivated.” Just a half-hour later, Lee published a missive of his own that read, “All that has changed is that Trump won the election. And now Jack Smith is moving to dismiss. Isn’t that tantamount to an admission that this was just politicized lawfare from the beginning?”

In other words, the Utah Republican expected the public to believe that Smith was pursuing cases against Trump before the election; the special counsel took steps to drop the charges after the election; and this sequence necessary suggests the prosecutor’s efforts were politically motivated.

To be sure, I’m not a mind-reader. I have no idea whether Lee was making a sincere but misguided point or whether he was merely pretending to be foolish out of a cynical belief that many Americans will believe nonsense.

Either way, to the extent that reality still has any meaning, there’s literally no reason to believe Smith and the special counsel’s office wanted these cases to end. To hear Lee tell it, Smith effectively concluded, “Well, Trump won, so I guess there’s no point in trying to prosecute him anymore.”

That, however, is absurd. Smith and his team did everything they could to hold Trump accountable for his many alleged crimes. They’re wrapping up, not because they’ve lost interest, but because their hands are tied. As the Times’ Glenn Thrush summarized online, in a message directed at Lee, “All of our reporting (and that of others) indicates that Smith and [Justice Department officials] believe — right now — that Trump committed crimes and failing to prosecute him represents a threat to rule of law.”

If the senior senator from Utah is looking for evidence of “politicized lawfare” — evidence that Republicans have spent years trying in vain to find — he’ll have to look elsewhere.

=====================================================

"In other words, the Utah Republican expected the public to believe..."

"... a cynical belief that many Americans will believe nonsense."

Why would Sen. Mike Lee think twice about what he and others could influence others to believe? It's a proven and working formula. It can be transparent lies, and it still works. Actually, it works better than truth, given the means to end zero-sum game they are playing.

I often hear or read a claim from Rightists who say some version of: "Just give me the information and I'll make up my own mind about Truth". Often, they refer back to Walter Cronkite's closing "And that's the way it is". They say they don't want to be told what to think.

Yet Fox News is a big influencer. And yet, Trump's lies influenced greatly, amplified by practically all MSM one way or another.

So, I have only scratched the surface of the concept "Belief in Fiction".

If you really want to know something you have to invest in it, especially time and curiosity.

For those willing, here's a rather long video which IMO answers most questions about Belief in Fiction and why we should be concerned about it.

The video is long, but it just keeps getting more interesting.

Who is supposed to be the arbiter of Truth?

https://youtu.be/thZUMaGEE-8?si=NYwcnmuQCBHjNykI

We can split the atom but not distinguish truth. Our information is failing us | Yuval Noah Harari

==========================================

If you don't want to invest the time and watch the whole video, then skip/scroll all the way to the closing summary.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

the nation has never experienced a situation where half the population voted in affirmation of belief in fiction.

Null hypothesis.

hunter's laptop
killary's email servers