More details from the Salt Lake Tribune. He is indeed a whackadoo from all appearances. But that he is was inciting riot for nefarious ideological reasons seems a stretch - he just seems to love chaos and attention. I think the closing lines of that columnist is pretty on point.
The founder of Black Lives Matter Utah disavowed left-wing activist John Sullivan, who was arrested in connection with the Jan. 6 Capitol riot in Washington, describing him as a reckless agitator who was “blackballed” due to his behavior.
“We do not want to be associated with John Sullivan,” Lex Scott, the founder, told Fox News on Friday.
Sullivan founded his own organization, Insurgence USA, and never joined the local BLM chapter, attended a meeting, or took part in its mission to lobby for racial justice and police reform, she said.
“John is a new activist,” Scott said. “He got here in June, because a lot of bandwagon trendy people came in.”
But Sullivan never joined or participated in Black Lives Matter Utah, which has been peacefully pushing for reforms for seven years, without ever having a member arrested, she said.
You’ve also forgotten one thing. All those protestors were there to hear Trump speak. He urged them to march on The Capitol. And strangely enough, many of them already had weaponry on them.
Problem is, this sort of qualifier is wide enough that one could drive a truck through it. (Yes, I know, you were referring to Canada, not the USA)
The Trumpers themselves who stormed the Capitol, or encouraged the riot, weren’t doing so because they wanted to do away with democracy - on the contrary, they claimed the Democratic “theft” of the election through ‘election fraud’ was harming democracy.
With that sort of reasoning, Trump-supporting military would feel justified as much as a Trump-opposing military.
And I know that you are wrong…unless none of those insurrectionists and/or the media and Congresscritters that supported/still support them are Republicans.
Is that your claim?
Keep in mind, it was a much longer conversation. And we talked about exactly that issue of how can you tell whether an order is contrary to preserving democracy in Canada or not? And whether even such an order might be inherently illegal (while not against the Laws of Armed Conflict or the Geneva Conventions it would be considered contrary to CF policy). I mentioned it because I was very proud to be an officer in the CF that day. That the people I was serving with were committed to a democratic Canada, at least as an ideal. As you say, the devil is in the details. But for me, like that sergeant, the absolute red line is democracy. I can have a disagreement with almost anybody about almost anything and walk away thinking “Well, people have different points of view”, but not on democracy and fascism. If you’re anti-democracy or a fascist, then you’re the enemy in my mind.
Now to your point, yes, we need people to exercise good judgment and not fall for lies. But I think that’s a whole other thread on combatting disinformation and the importance of critical thinking.
(Note, you in this instance as almost always with my writing is not Velocity or any other poster, it is the “general you”)
What lines have the Trumpettes drawn when it comes to the ends justifying the means?
(Bolding mine.) Just because they claimed it doesn’t make it remotely true, and doesn’t make their actions any less anti-democracy (or more excusable). If I steal your car while claiming it’s public property, I’m not getting cut any slack from the police.
If they were actually concerned about voter theft, they’d take challenges to the federal courts, which have been stacked with Republican-leaning justices, and the Supreme Court, which has been quite notably staffed with a distinct conservative lean. The notion that the insurgents are “protecting democracy” is a fig leaf at best, and many are very clear about actually wanting to dismantle government. Their Gormless Leader, of course, has been very vocal about his contempt for the legislative process even when it was dominated by members of his ostensible party, and petulant when Congress or the Supreme Court did not back his attempts to overreach in the use of executive authority in ways that even George W. Bush or Barack Obama administrations wouldn’t have dreamed of.
Stranger
There is a timeline, most forget. The original breachers were there before Trump finished speaking. Like I said there are still investigations going on. There are rumors and conspiracy theories finger pointing. I am not in a position to know what exactly happened , I wasn’t there. Sullivan who was there, got on the news and they treated everything he said was true.
The Dems in 2014 protested the elections , least we forget. Maxine Waters called for violence against Republicans, and people harassed them in restaurants. Chuck Schumer threaten the Supremes, no action, Rand Paul was attacked by his neighbor, Scalise was shot almost died, others injured. No side is squeaky clean here. I’m not for any sort of payback. When does it stop?
Both sides!
Yes, and when did Democrats invade the building where an essential procedure of the election was taking place in an effort to disrupt that procedure in hopes of changing the election’s results?
There are “very fine people” there, or so I’ve been told.
Stranger
Both-sides-ing open incitement to violent insurrection by comparing it to a fleeting bit of meaningless political theater is risible and ridiculous, lest we forget.
Cite? Let me rephrase that: cite that everybody will agree on? Not everybody in this forum—more. Do you have a cite that a lot of Trumpists would also accept? It seems like that’s what it will take.
I liked what Sacha Baron Cohen said:
Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march.
I can believe some of those folks who broke into the Capitol thought they were patriots. Misguided, sure, but based on what they perceived the facts to be… They were catfished by algorithms.
If we don’t get back to agreeing on some basic facts, this will happen again. Gee, couldn’t the social media change their algorithms to de-program these folks? Nah, no money in it.
This just in:
President Donald Trump said Monday that he is ending Covid-19 travel restrictions for air travelers from Europe and Brazil, a move the incoming administration quickly rejected.
In a proclamation, Trump said the restrictions would be lifted Jan. 26, the same day a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention order requiring negative tests for air travelers coming to the U.S. takes effect.
But by then, Joe Biden will be president, and his press secretary tweeted that the restrictions would remain in place.
Trump thinks he’ll still be presidenting on the 26th? The denial is strong with this one…and his supporters.
No, as I suggested in a different thread, Trump is busy throwing stupid shit at the wall (well, when he isn’t busy complaining about the stolen election and paranoically speculating about how “they” will come after him) in a spiteful attempt to make the beginning of Biden’s term unpleasant and difficult with random cleanup operations everywhere he looks.
That was a neighbor dispute over lawn care, not a democratic transgression, you ignoramus.
In a word? Yes. Don’t hire them. Don’t sell to them. Don’t rent to them. Shame them wherever they go. Push them out of the churches and hospitals and schools and shelters. Make unpersons of them until they repent and prove they deserve access to civilized society.
Feelings have nothing to do with it. They would still be violating the law to use the military in any way to try and force an election outcome, period.
The proper channels for contesting fraud were used, and no evidence of fraud was found. The people claiming the fraud most of the time didn’t even provide any evidence in court. The Congressional meeting had no right to contest the State votes for how they held their elections–only for whether or not they were legitimately verified by the state.
This is a common refrain, talking about beliefs and ignoring that there is an objective reality. Both sides are only the same when there is no way to decide which one is correct.
There is no legal order to attack the Capitol without actual proven evidence of fraud. Heck, I’m not sure there is one without it. Whether an order is legal is not just based on what one feels is correct.
See also the actual people who attacked the Capitol are getting arrested even as they claim they legitimately thought there was fraud. If belief was a valid argument to be able to do something unlawful, they’d be going free.