Purgatory: Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1159160162164165168

Comments

  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Planet?
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Zuckerberg has closed T's accounts on Facebook and Instagram indefinitely. Twitter suspended him for at least twelve hours.

    Twitter has now banned him PERMANENTLY ...
  • There is still Parlar which is full of right-wing nutjobs.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Concerning 45's boycotting the inauguration: I can just see his MAGAts saying, "Boy he sure showed them! He's still in charge by gum!"
    Sadly, I think this is more or less right. It would be better for the country if Trump did attend, just as it would be better if he actually conceded the election and publicly referred to Biden as President-elect.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Concerning 45's boycotting the inauguration: I can just see his MAGAts saying, "Boy he sure showed them! He's still in charge by gum!"
    Sadly, I think this is more or less right. It would be better for the country if Trump did attend, just as it would be better if he actually conceded the election and publicly referred to Biden as President-elect.

    I could see Trump running up to the mic and screaming, "It's all a FRAUD ... !!! ... I won and everybody knows it ... !!!
  • DafydDafyd Hell Host
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
    Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
    I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.

  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
    Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
    I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
    I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
    Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
    I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
    I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.

    Yes ... The situation was chaotic and violent and the cops were outnumbered ...
    and one terrorist was shot, and she later died ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
    Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
    I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
    I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.

    Yes ... The situation was chaotic and violent and the cops were outnumbered ...
    and one terrorist was shot, and she later died ...
    This has nothing to do with my post.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    The Parler app just got banned from the Apple app store and Google Play (for Android).

    Meanwhile Trump's been on a sock puppeting rampage on Twitter. After his main account got banned for 'glorification of violence' he's tried using three other accounts so far and keeps getting caught and deleted. The 'very stable genius' strikes again...
  • Louise wrote: »
    The Parler app just got banned from the Apple app store and Google Play (for Android).

    Meanwhile Trump's been on a sock puppeting rampage on Twitter. After his main account got banned for 'glorification of violence' he's tried using three other accounts so far and keeps getting caught and deleted. The 'very stable genius' strikes again...

    He is a life-long psychopath who is (in psych terms) de-compensating ...
  • This could go on any thread, but since stupidity is most at home on this one, I'll put it here.

    In the WaPo article on the FBI investigating those who invaded the Capitol, and firms firing employees who are discovered to have been insurrectionists, there is the case of Paul Davis, a lawyer FFS for an insurance firm, who live streamed from outside, saying that he wanted to get into the Capitol. A lawyer. Live streaming. Expressing his desire to enter federal property unlawfully. Darwin in action.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    I think it's just as well T doesn't attend the inauguration. In perfect better world--well, in a better world, T never would've been president, or he wouldn't be saddled with any of the damage that makes him massively unfit for the job, or both.

    In this world, though: If he attended Biden's inauguration in person, I would be waiting for the moment he jumped up and went for Biden's throat, or pulled out a gun, or some such. If he knows the phrase, he might shout "Sic semper tyrannis" * afterwards, then trying to swing from something on his way out. Hopefully, he wouldn't manage more than missing Biden, falling down hard, and being hogtied by the Secret Service.

    But I'd rather everyone avoided that.

    *"Thus always to tyrants"--what John Wilkes Booth reportedly shouted after killing Pres. Lincoln, as he swung down from the theater balcony.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    edited January 2021
    Re T's sock-puppets:

    He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
  • John Barron was one. It sticks in my mind because one of our experts on the USA has that name.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.

    Even so:

    'By breaking into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday and disrupting the electoral vote count, every single person involved in the attack has committed a federal felony, seditious conspiracy, and faces up to 20 years in a federal prison.

    The elements of this crime are simple: “If two or more persons ... conspire to ... by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ... they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”'

    Amen.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    John Barron was one. It sticks in my mind because one of our experts on the USA has that name.

    That thought occurred to someone else.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re T's sock-puppets:

    He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
    I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Yes, there were thugs carrying guns and Molotov cocktails ...
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.

    From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
    Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.

    I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.

    From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
    Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.

    I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.

    The thugs were not just out on a spontaneous *lark* ...
    It was planned out ahead of time ... With the dark web document trail, they will be found to have conspired, another Federal crime ...
  • There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers. One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies. Look at the faces of the congresspersons hiding under their desks. Those were faces of terror.

    There is the story of one man who had a TAZER in his pants pocket that went off as he was ripping down the picture of Tip O' Neil. He ended up dying of a heart attack,
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers.

    Well, Trump did go on Twitter while his mob was storming the Capitol and told them Pence was the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Not in those words of course, because Trump doesn't read and literary references are beyond him, but the idea was there. He tried to have a mob murder his own vice president in front of the man's family.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies.

    Zip-tie guy has been identified as retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr. His statement on the matter is as shameless as it is transparent.
    In an interview, Brock confirmed that he was the man in the photos and videos. He denied that he held racist views and echoed Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, saying that he derived his understanding of the matter principally from social media. He told me that he had gone to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate peacefully. “The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” he said. Brock added that he did not identify as part of any organized group and claimed that, despite the scenes of destruction that day, he had seen no violence. When he arrived at the Capitol, he said, he assumed he was welcome to enter the building.

    Brock denied that he had entered Pelosi’s office suite, saying that he “stopped five to ten feet ahead of the sign” bearing her title that insurrectionists later tore down and brandished. However, in the ITV video, he appears to emerge from the suite. Brock said that he had worn tactical gear because “I didn’t want to get stabbed or hurt,” citing “B.L.M. and Antifa” as potential aggressors. He claimed that he had found the zip-tie handcuffs on the floor. “I wish I had not picked those up,” he told me. “My thought process there was I would pick them up and give them to an officer when I see one. . . . I didn’t do that because I had put them in my coat, and I honestly forgot about them.” He also said that he was opposed to vandalizing the building, and was dismayed when he learned of the extent of the destruction. “I know it looks menacing,” he told me. “That was not my intent.”

    Some commenters with more knowledge of this matter than I have said that it's theoretically possible for the Air Force to recall Lt. Col. Brock to service for the sole purpose of court martialling him. I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is even more harsh on insurrection than civilian law is, but I am not a military lawyer.
  • The other zip-tie/flex-cuff guy is allegedly Eric Munchel.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers.

    Well, Trump did go on Twitter while his mob was storming the Capitol and told them Pence was the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Not in those words of course, because Trump doesn't read and literary references are beyond him, but the idea was there. He tried to have a mob murder his own vice president in front of the man's family.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies.

    Zip-tie guy has been identified as retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr. His statement on the matter is as shameless as it is transparent.
    In an interview, Brock confirmed that he was the man in the photos and videos. He denied that he held racist views and echoed Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, saying that he derived his understanding of the matter principally from social media. He told me that he had gone to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate peacefully. “The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” he said. Brock added that he did not identify as part of any organized group and claimed that, despite the scenes of destruction that day, he had seen no violence. When he arrived at the Capitol, he said, he assumed he was welcome to enter the building.

    Brock denied that he had entered Pelosi’s office suite, saying that he “stopped five to ten feet ahead of the sign” bearing her title that insurrectionists later tore down and brandished. However, in the ITV video, he appears to emerge from the suite. Brock said that he had worn tactical gear because “I didn’t want to get stabbed or hurt,” citing “B.L.M. and Antifa” as potential aggressors. He claimed that he had found the zip-tie handcuffs on the floor. “I wish I had not picked those up,” he told me. “My thought process there was I would pick them up and give them to an officer when I see one. . . . I didn’t do that because I had put them in my coat, and I honestly forgot about them.” He also said that he was opposed to vandalizing the building, and was dismayed when he learned of the extent of the destruction. “I know it looks menacing,” he told me. “That was not my intent.”

    Some commenters with more knowledge of this matter than I have said that it's theoretically possible for the Air Force to recall Lt. Col. Brock to service for the sole purpose of court martialling him. I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is even more harsh on insurrection than civilian law is, but I am not a military lawyer.

    The guy certainly knows how to dig the hole deeper.
  • I have a friend who used to work for HMRC (UK revenue and customs) who is super-compliant about all matters to do with tax. He really doesn't want to lose his pension. I find it odd that Lt.Col.Brock didn't have that conversation with himself.
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    The "I just picked them up" lie is so bald-faced, I'm surprised he could say it with a straight face. Court-martial is too good for this piece of shit.
  • I am not sure what the penalty of insurrection is, but if it includes capital punishment, just remember Trump had lifted the federal moratorium on it.

    (I imagine Biden/Harris will move to pass a law banning capital punishment in due time.)
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    There are lots of stories about lots of things - and a lot of them are just internet bullshit.
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The other zip-tie/flex-cuff guy is allegedly Eric Munchel.
    Who attended the riot with his mom, apparently. Kind of sweet, in a way.

    (Apropos of nothing, I was struck by one sentence in that article:
    However, it seems like the FBI has its work cut out for them as internet sleuths have managed to track down the man as a bartender from Nashville, Tennessee.
    I’ve never seen the idiom “to have one’s work cut out” used this way before. Makes me wonder what odd misapprehensions the reporter has been carrying around since first hearing that and guessing wrong about its meaning.)
  • mousethiefmousethief Deckhand, Styx
    Yes "having one's work cut out for one" means one has to do the work, not reap the benefits of other people's work.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Yeah, though you can see how you might guess wrong the first time you heard it if you didn't happen to really understand the situation it was being applied to.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    Dave W--
    Dave W wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re T's sock-puppets:

    He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
    I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.

    IIRC, he used to use online aliases to comment on himself. (Along the lines of "Isn't The Donald great, and did you hear what those losers did to him?".) And, currently, a non-obvious pseudonym would at least feed his posting habit.
  • Martin54Martin54 Deckhand, Styx
    edited January 2021
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.

    From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
    Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.

    I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.

    I'm specially pleading nothing. They weren't in the Capitol. Hopefully having a truckload of napalm 'near', in the environs of, within 2-400m, is a major felony. 200 (no typo) years in a maximum security prison.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Dave W--
    Dave W wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Re T's sock-puppets:

    He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
    I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.

    IIRC, he used to use online aliases to comment on himself. (Along the lines of "Isn't The Donald great, and did you hear what those losers did to him?".) And, currently, a non-obvious pseudonym would at least feed his posting habit.
    I don't see how. Nobody will be following if they don't know it's him.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    But part of his addiction is simply the act of tweeting, etc. And he can talk about himself, as someone else. As mentioned, he has a history of that. Not as satisfying for him as posting as himself and having so many social media followers; but it can be a way for him to vent a bit, get a little attention, and do the physical act of posting.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    Golden Key wrote: »
    But part of his addiction is simply the act of tweeting, etc.
    I haven't heard any evidence of this, and I rather doubt it.
    And he can talk about himself, as someone else. As mentioned, he has a history of that.
    By calling in to programs on radio stations that he knew were broadcast to hundreds of thousands or millions of people. The number of followers on the average US twitter account is 700; hundreds of millions of accounts have no followers at all. He knows nobody will be listening. You might as well suggest he'd be satisfied talking out loud to himself in an empty room.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    This could go on any thread, but since stupidity is most at home on this one, I'll put it here.

    In the WaPo article on the FBI investigating those who invaded the Capitol, and firms firing employees who are discovered to have been insurrectionists, there is the case of Paul Davis, a lawyer FFS for an insurance firm, who live streamed from outside, saying that he wanted to get into the Capitol. A lawyer. Live streaming. Expressing his desire to enter federal property unlawfully. Darwin in action.

    I wonder...

    So many people on social media post about themselves doing unwise, illegal, dangerous, and/or mind-bogglingly stupid things. Even half a thought should set off some kind of "hmmm...consequences?" alarm.


    Maybe many of them think of social media and everything connected to it as something in their heads? And/or some kind of alt/mixed reality? So actual, real-world consequences do not, in their minds, apply.

    Thoughts?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Maybe many of them think of social media and everything connected to it as something in their heads? And/or some kind of alt/mixed reality? So actual, real-world consequences do not, in their minds, apply.

    Thoughts?

    Nail, head, direct hit. I can imagine these guys go on in this fashion among workmates and buddies, many of whom will agree and approve (after all, don't most of us select our friends on the basis of similar believes and values?), so there's widespread support and agreement and zero negative consequences while in conversation over a beer after work. There's no taking on board the fact that the Internet is an entirely different environment, where one leaves tracks and boatloads of near-permanent evidence behind.
  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".

    And bombs don't count because . . . ?

    Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.

    Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?

    There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.

    Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.

    I find it deeply strange, bordering on disingenuous, that you would talk as if the mob taking over the Capitol and the person placing pipe bombs are 2 completely separate things with no connection to each other whatsoever.

  • orfeoorfeo Suspended
    Golden Key wrote: »
    This could go on any thread, but since stupidity is most at home on this one, I'll put it here.

    In the WaPo article on the FBI investigating those who invaded the Capitol, and firms firing employees who are discovered to have been insurrectionists, there is the case of Paul Davis, a lawyer FFS for an insurance firm, who live streamed from outside, saying that he wanted to get into the Capitol. A lawyer. Live streaming. Expressing his desire to enter federal property unlawfully. Darwin in action.

    I wonder...

    So many people on social media post about themselves doing unwise, illegal, dangerous, and/or mind-bogglingly stupid things. Even half a thought should set off some kind of "hmmm...consequences?" alarm.


    Maybe many of them think of social media and everything connected to it as something in their heads? And/or some kind of alt/mixed reality? So actual, real-world consequences do not, in their minds, apply.

    Thoughts?

    They don't believe they're doing something unwise, illegal, dangerous or mind-bogglingly stupid. They believe they're upholding the true Constitution, defending the nation etc etc, because that what Trump has told them over and over again.

    The fact that they believe these things is itself dangerous and mind-bogglingly stupid.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Maybe many of them think of social media and everything connected to it as something in their heads? And/or some kind of alt/mixed reality? So actual, real-world consequences do not, in their minds, apply.

    Thoughts?

    Nail, head, direct hit. I can imagine these guys go on in this fashion among workmates and buddies, many of whom will agree and approve (after all, don't most of us select our friends on the basis of similar believes and values?), so there's widespread support and agreement and zero negative consequences while in conversation over a beer after work. There's no taking on board the fact that the Internet is an entirely different environment, where one leaves tracks and boatloads of near-permanent evidence behind.

    It's a notable aspect of contemporary riots that many participants are willing to commit crimes right in front of strangers taking photos with their cell phones. You can google "Vancouver hockey riots 2011" for some breathtaking Profiles In Stupidity.

    (Though I suspect in the Capitol riots, there was also the factor that some of the rioters assumed they would actually succeed in stopping the vote, and would wind up as big heroes once the rest of the nation realized they had been saved from tyranny.)
  • mousethief wrote: »
    The "I just picked them up" lie is so bald-faced, I'm surprised he could say it with a straight face. Court-martial is too good for this piece of shit.

    He "just picked them up" ... and immediately turned them over to a police officer ... ??? ...
    Uh huh ...
  • edited January 2021
    The more the details come out, the more this seems well-planned. I was troubled by the guy in the viking costume with the facepaint and other readily identifiable features. But that group just broke in, attracted a lot of attention but did not perpetrate much violence themselves, other than breaking and entering. So they get a few years in jail at worst.

    Meanwhile other insurrectionists came in in plain clothes with handcuffs with clear intent to abduct people. The costume crew were a purposeful distraction, camera bait.

    The plan failed as too many people in the building had their own cameras out and captured images that the public wasn't supposed to see.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Meanwhile other insurrectionists came in in plain clothes with handcuffs with clear intent to abduct people. The costume crew were a purposeful distraction, camera bait.

    The plan failed as too many people in the building had their own cameras out and captured images that the public wasn't supposed to see.
    I don’t think it qualifies as well planned if you come with your mom and talk on camera to random people in the hotel lobby before the attack.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Meanwhile other insurrectionists came in in plain clothes with handcuffs with clear intent to abduct people. The costume crew were a purposeful distraction, camera bait.

    The plan failed as too many people in the building had their own cameras out and captured images that the public wasn't supposed to see.
    I don’t think it qualifies as well planned if you come with your mom and talk on camera to random people in the hotel lobby before the attack.

    It wasn't necessarily closely *planned* by everybody in the mob ...
  • edited January 2021
    You just fell for the trick. It was intentionally camp. Like magician acts, its a misdirection.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate, Glory
    orfeo--
    orfeo wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I wonder...

    So many people on social media post about themselves doing unwise, illegal, dangerous, and/or mind-bogglingly stupid things. Even half a thought should set off some kind of "hmmm...consequences?" alarm.


    Maybe many of them think of social media and everything connected to it as something in their heads? And/or some kind of alt/mixed reality? So actual, real-world consequences do not, in their minds, apply.

    Thoughts?

    They don't believe they're doing something unwise, illegal, dangerous or mind-bogglingly stupid. They believe they're upholding the true Constitution, defending the nation etc etc, because that what Trump has told them over and over again.

    The fact that they believe these things is itself dangerous and mind-bogglingly stupid.

    Well, yeah, but I'm speaking more broadly than just the rioters. I'm thinking of all the people on social media who do the sorts of things I mentioned. I'm not on social media, so I'm going by what I've heard and scene in news coverage and in general discussion over many years.

    (This is before getting into the topic of why so many female celebs have been going around half-dressed or nearly naked in public and online. And I don't just mean during the pandemic. Are they asking for intimacy? Their sense of reality may already have been skewed, 'cause fame. They may well be caught in the sort of irreality I described.)
This discussion has been closed.