Nothing inflammatory there, especially considering every Trump rally and every gathering of Trump supporters had until now been peaceful.

Giuliani is a lawyer and it seems pretty obvious he was referring to court battles. Also, he's not Trump.

As for "dog whistles", a term that's constantly being used by one particular side, I will just say: If you keep hearing dog whistles all the time, you're probably the dog.

I'll admit that the article in its entirety sounded overly pessimistic, but in the end I think it justly points out that there are some real dangers here, and have been for a while, and that the society of the USA should not underestimate this.

And yes, I think the article is based on facts.

I'm not saying that all Trump supporters are like that. Or all Republicans. And neither does the article.

BTW, I get my news globally from various sources that I also believe to be factual, and this is not an isolated viewpoint.

Conveniently not telling me who you mean, so you can always pedal back if need be. Nice. Anyhow, let me counter with this quote:
Anyhow and once again, this is the by now very familiar argument many US Americans so love to use in their "political debates": You say A is bad, but I say A is good because B is also bad.

What a veiled threat. I quake with fear. Not to mention devisive rhethoric. Is this how you perceive the world?

Thanks for pointing out my grammar mistake, I have now corrected the OP.

Um.
Newsflash: look at half the threads in Non-*NIX/General.
But we usually manage to discuss politics reasonably. I suggest we all keep it that way.

Oh man, that literally made my laugh out loud.
Here's his quote again, for those with attention deficits:
Yeah, clearly refering to a court room there. /s

And here's Trump again right after the disaster:
That's way beyond dogwhistling.

What are you talking about? Why would anyone "backpedal" regarding indisputable facts?

As I've said, I'm not from or in the U.S., and this is what it looks like from a foreign perspective:

Here I am, in another country, watching the news with others. We get to see footage from the U.S. of violent mobs of masked people, many dressed in all-black, smashing up stores, setting buildings and cars on fire, and beating up random people, including the elderly and journalists.

This goes on for days and weeks. Some are arrested, but immediately released on bail. We get to see their mugshots, and they're mostly young, almost all white. District Attorneys say openly that they will not prosecute rioters. Some American politicians raise money for bail funds.

Many of the protesters carry banners that say "Black Lives Matter", which seems like an obvious truth, but many of the the businesses that are destroyed turns out to be minority-owned. This does not make any sense to us. At first.

And when we see clips from U.S. news reports and quotes from newspapers saying these are "mostly peaceful protests" (including the famous clip of a reporter saying just that as he stands in front of a burning police station), we wonder if the Americans have indeed gone completely insane.

So we go to the BLM website to see who these people are, what they say about themselves, and why on earth someone would commit acts of random violence in their name. And then it all makes sense to us. Because in Europe, we've seen this before. Many times.

According to the founders of BLM, they are communist revolutionaries. "Trained marxists", they say in interviews (still up at YouTube). And the BLM website contains phrases that are familiar to us, such as statements that they are against "patriarchy" and the nuclear family. (They scrubbed this from the site later, but The Wayback Machine has it on record.)

BLM (as in the organization, not everyone protesting under the banner "Black Lives Matter") is a front organization, and it's not even a covert one. Among their board members we find a communist revolutionary terrorist, Susan Rosenberg, who was convicted for the 1983 senate bombing, but was pardoned by the Clinton administration.

Such organizations seek to sow division and cause mayhem in order to gain power. Similar organizations did, and continue to do so, in many countries in my region of the world. Support them at your peril.

So when someone says "don't do as the others, we must have peace, go home", it actually means "use the same tactics as the opposition, commit acts of violence, stay where you are"?

Are you sure you're not the dog here?

A great post - one little niggle, I believe she and another participant had their sentences 'commuted' by Clinton in 2001 after several years in prison.

A lot of these things come out quite differently in the press to the way they actually were. I saw a case of this practically round the corner from where I live.

Some years ago, our local Muslims decided to build a mosque instead of meeting at the back of a shop. Fine! No one objected to that. It's common now to have small mosques in London suburbs and a few bigger ones nearer the centre. Many of us were not so pleased when an enormous square building in red brick went up, much bigger than any of our local churches. But Harrow Council had allowed it so there was not much anyone could do. We shrugged our shoulders and tried to ignore it.

An outside group called the English Defence League got to hear about our mosque and decided to poke their oar in. They are an organisation of young men, mostly white, poorly educated and inclined to blame immigrants for anything that has gone wrong in their lives. Much like the Proud Boys, I suppose. When I heard about the demo, I decided to go along to see how it panned out

I saw a very small number of white demonstrators, less than a dozen, carrying placards. They stood around looking rather at a loss. It was pretty obvious that no one was in charge and that they were quite incapable of posing a threat to anyone. There was a much larger number of Asian men in Islamic dress looking very angry. And there was also a large number of policemen looking bored. They made no attempt to interfere in what followed.

A few of the Asians started arguing vehemently with an old white woman who was waiting for a bus at a nearby stop. I suppose she had said something tactless, as old women are inclined to do. It was clear that she was getting hustled and abused but the police did nothing. Then a cameraman turned up and started filming. Immediately the Asians turned on him and chased him into the Town Hall (which is quite near the mosque on the other side of the road). Again, no one seemed to care very much. I heard later that they thought, for some reason, that he belonged to the BNP (the British National Party, another right wing group of bully boys). I felt sad that people who clearly (by their age) were born in our country didn't appear to know the difference between the BNP and the BBC!

I went home and thought no more of it until the local weekly rag came out a few days later telling a very different story. Apparently there had been a concerted attempt by the EDL to beat up our peace-loving Muslim brothers and all the local politicians were falling over themselves to express their solidarity with the latter. Of course it's possible that things turned nastier after I left, but I must say the boys I saw didn't look capable of organising a pissup in a brewery, let alone a riot.

So I am rather dubious about similar reports from elsewhere.

They didn't "just walk in briskly" at all, nor did the police "just let them in" initially - it was only when the police realized they had zero chance of controlling the situation they "let them in". The Capitol Police in particular were completely out numbered, didn't have enough of the necessary gear (eg. masks, shields, etc), and were simply completely unprepared for such a so-called "protest". This video gives a good glimpse of how it started, and you can clearly see the cops had to take turns in sharing their masks to deal with their own tear gas. They had exactly the same number of officers rostered on that day as they would have in a normal day, so it was a complete failure that they weren't far better prepared.

While I agree with you that it's completely laughable to honestly think there was any chance of them actually being able to stage a "coup"... at least some of them (by their very own admissions) did indeed consider it a "revolution". At the end of the day, you would need the support of the military at the very least to successfully perform a coup, and they simply didn't have that, so there was no way they could have pulled it off. But there were so-called "protesters" that did have cable tie handcuffs with them, so it's logical to think at least some of them intended to detain people - most likely the likes of Pelosi if they could have gotten a hold of them. There was certainly at least one "protester" that openly talked about shooting Pelosi "in the noggin" or failing that, running her over with a car.

There was a "Black Lives Matter" protest where I live last year, they had to get permission from the police commissioner to hold the protest (because of covid restrictions). They got the permission, and nobody got arrested, no property damage was committed, and the protesters made their point and went home. The police commissioner even said himself afterwards "it is very pleasing that none of my officers had to make any arrests". The point is: that is "peaceful protest", not storming a building committing vandalism. Although, and that said, as far as riots are concerned, the one we're talking about here was pretty mild compared to a lot of others, but either way, it was not "peaceful".

I hope for Biden's sake they get the security right on his inauguration, as there will be trump nutcases that'll show up.

BTW, did you see the CBS's coverage of the National Explosives Task Force report on this?

Pipe bombs were found at both the RNC and DNC headquarters on Jan 6. at 12:45 and 13:15 EST respectively. At this point, Trump hadn't even finished addressing the crowd at his rally, were he encouraged his supporters to march.

Link.

Few. Gather all the information that you can get from the Left-Right-Middle and see if you can determine what really happened. Or what you think happened. A major part of a 50 year running problem.

I don't think that Jan 6 was planned out too well, or at all. I think that perhaps things morphed into more than intended. I don't know. This will be investigated for years. It most certainly could have been way worse, if some planning had happened. And the Capitol "authorities" were caught with their pants down. They apparently did not foresee this. Which, again, shows the disconnect between some in Washington with the rest of America.

I certainly don't think that was the end of it. I think that was one of the opening shots in a new age of "rebellion against the swamp".

Haven't heard anyone speaking about this poor woman. A military veteran/hero, who was gunned down by capitol police. She was climbing over the wall, sure she was, but, had this been a black person then this would be all over the news for weeks, with the media trying to gin up riots over it.

Don't look at this if you don't want to see someone getting shot.
Ashli Babbitt
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video...RjjsAxbwoM.mp4

Should this capitol police person be hounded out of office and federal charges be brought for shooting this person?

I'm closing this thread. A couple comments:

* We're increasingly close to a moratorium on all political topics.
* Multiple people will not receive further warning before their General posting privileges are removed.

--jeremy