One thing is clear: the "Stop The Steal" crowd was clearly radicalized into something openly violent and seditious. Mainstream news outlets that actively encouraged this violence must be shut down.
I think it's right to call out the double-standard in reporting. There's a big dissonance in the eyes of folks who watched CNN stand over a burning building proclaiming that the BLM protests were in fact entirely peaceful. And in the eyes of folks watching FOX right now, saying the assault on the capital was largely peaceful. I'm not joking. Both of these things happened.
I think it's also important to call out what's different between the two instances. The BLM protests were in response to a real, meaningful threat to the safety of a group of individuals. American citizens. There were real life body counts that were being fought against, and an attempt was made to renegotiate the role of policing in modern society.
The capital assault was over something that didn't happen. The capital assault happened because the president has been fanning the flames of violence in America for four years. Seeding dissent. Destroying faith in governance and in the rule of law. Simply because of the fragility of his ego didn't allow him to accept defeat.
I'll come right out and say it, violence is never ok. It's also not fair to equate the two of these situations.
> The BLM protests were in response to a real, meaningful threat
actually, your two examples are very alike in the "things that did not happen" category. the murder of George floyd was negligent at best and malicious at worst, but racist cops killing blacks is simply not a large issue, and certainly not a "meaningful threat" to all black people.
San Harris published a seminal piece on the matter:
Without saying I agree or disagree, if I take the position that racism in policing doesn't exist, and that the police are treating everyone equally:
America has in prison today almost 0.7% of its entire population. Right now. It is the world's leading jailer on a per-capita basis. [1] Two thirds of private prisons (which lets step back for a second is horrifying as a concept) include minimum occupancy clauses. [2] This is an utter failure of the state in its duty of care to its citizens. To call this a conflict of interest doesn't even begin to do it justice.
The incarceration rate among African Americans is almost 7X that of white folks in America. Criminality and race do not go hand in hand, therefore there exists a real and meaningful problem that is disproportionately affecting a racial group. A social and/or economic problem.
African Americans have way more interaction with police and policing, and even if you believe there's no racial disparity in the way those interactions go down - that instead they're killed and harassed at the same rate as white folks on a per-encounter basis - the fact is they have way, way more encounters per capita. This is likely a function of the society that America has built and fostered.
The reaction and the frustration and the protest is still justified even if you believe that race didn't play a factor in the specific instances, and even if you believe there's no systemic issue with policing.
Now, there's also evidence that there is a difference in how they are treated by police, but I think my argument holds even if you reject that premise.
> if I take your position that racism in policing doesn't exist, and that the police are treating everyone equally:
Please don't do this. Its obvious OP didn't even remotely mean or say this.
They clearly said that there is some level of racism, not that it doesn't exist at all. Is it the greatest problem facing America? I'd argue its not even in the top 10.
> They clearly said that there is some level of racism, not that it doesn't exist at all. Is it the greatest problem facing America? I'd argue its not even in the top 10.
We can have multiple problems, and we can address them in parallel. We don't have to pretend one problem doesn't exist simply because we run into another.
Of course, why would anyone oppose it. But, we only have limited funds/time/political capital, etc. I think we should give top priority to healthcare/education/jobs/, and use the remaining funds to address other issues.
Thing is they're all tied in together. If you have a class of folks in low socioeconomic standing, leading to criminality, that's costing real dollars - in terms of the legal system, in terms of prisons, in terms of lost income, in terms of healthcare, and jobs. The argument I'm making is they're all the same thing.
If I did that, it was unintentional. When I noticed how my reply could have been interpreted that way I cleared it up. If I've done so elsewhere please do share, and I'll make the corrections. That's not my intention!
This large BLM crowds have the costume of destroy and set fire on anything on their way, just glasses were broken yesterday. If the protestors start destroy everything surely would justify a more strong action.
i have to agree. if you spend 4 years telling half the country they are the enemy for supporting trump then don't be surprised when half the country views you as the enemy.
You don't see how breaking into the Capitol Building, during a dual session, with the express intent of disrupting the ratification of election results, because the loser of said election egged them on, is a more serious situation?
of course not. they can have that meeting by zoom or teams or conference call. they didn't ruin anything, unlike the neighborhoods that may take years to rebuild.
they feel political unrest and they took it out on politicians. theyre probably wrong, but its better than burning down some unrelated guys store, no?
This is a nuanced issue. The intentions are indeed purer (if the comparison is restricted solely to someone breaching the Capitol building exclusively due to sincere belief the election was rigged [without displaying bigoted/fascist regalia/symbols] and someone burning down an arbitrary, unrelated private business after George Floyd's death), but two things:
- That's partly why this really highlights the cold immorality and/or the abject delusion of the fomenter of this activity more than it does for most of the mob. I don't necessarily think most of the protestors and rioters are immoral or trying to be malicious: I think they genuinely believe what their leader is telling them and believe they're doing a righteous thing to protect the Constitution and the country. So for a large subset of the people, I think Trump deserves more blame for this than they do, whatever the underlying reasoning behind his actions.
- It's difficult to accurately debate this without empirical classification of offenses (what people did and how many people did them), otherwise it's easy to start reducing a broad situation to one symbolized by its least or most admirable participants.
No matter what BLM did or didn't do - and saying they burned and looted cities for months is clear right-wing hyperbole - Trump supporters stormed the Capital, destroyed property, looted, committed violence and planted explosives in an attempt to disrupt the legitimate process of government and overturn the Presidential election.
They are exactly the breed of fascists that everyone thought they were. You can blame the left as easily as you breathe but there isn't enough whataboutism in the world to negate that.
What happened in Capitol hill pales in comparison to BLM. I watched them burn the streets of Chicago. They looted stores in the loop, twice. There are stores that are gone forever.
Nobody set the capitol on fire. The majority of protesters didn't even enter the building. They damaged some property in a public building. They didn't set a police station on fire.
There is absolutely no way you can compare what happened on the 6th to any BLM race riot. Was it wrong? absolutely. They should not have done it. But the left has burned and looted. Portland has been absolutely insane. A 14 year old black kid was killed in CHAZ by community police that shot up a white Jeep and then tried to get rid of all the evidences.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit with three sentences. Three sentences!!! SCOTUS is the only venue for a state to challenge any other state.
People have lost faith in the system, not because of the orange man bad, but because the system if fucking broken. People are totally unwilling to even acknowledge the idea or concept that wide spread mail in ballot fraud happened, when it certainly did.
>People are totally unwilling to even acknowledge the idea or concept that wide spread mail in ballot fraud happened, when it certainly did.
This is the crux of the issue; one of the two movies playing on the same screen.
You and many other Trump voters genuinely believe this to be the case. The opposition believes there's no credible evidence not only for wide spread mail-in ballot fraud but not even for minor, scattered cases (besides the rare outliers here and there that are inevitable for every election).
This one particular issue carries the potential to catalyze a chain reaction that eventually leads to conflict or war, so I think it's extremely important that people at the very least take the discussion seriously and try to help bridge the gap between the two movies. If this doesn't happen, the screen might just get ripped asunder.
> The Supreme Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit with three sentences. Three sentences!!! SCOTUS is the only venue for a state to challenge any other state.
The same Supreme Court with six conservative justices? If Trump couldn’t convince the conservative justices anywhere (let alone at the highest level) that there was widespread fraud, maybe there wasn’t.
saying they burned and looted cities for months is clear right-wing hyperbole
Wait, is it? I'm not American and even I know that Portland has been the site of continuous nightly riots for months now. It stopped being reported a long time ago but it's still happening. https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo posts pictures and videos of it every single day all summer and winter. They smash up and burn buildings all the time, and that includes repeated attacks on federal courthouses.
Ngo claims the group are called antifa and the rioters all seem to be white, but they claim to be BLM and to be fighting against racism so I guess it's reasonable to call them BLM riots.
I mean, which kind of rioting is worse is absolutely a reasonable discussion to have, but writing off the last six months of nightly rioting in Portland as "right wing hyperbole" when there are endless pictures, videos, mugshots, etc ... well that just seems like the kind of bubble isolation that is being decried up thread.
Andy Ngo is completely and utterly full of shit. He spent much of 2019 working with Far Right groups like Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys crafting narratives to demonize left-wing groups. He is on video discussing an upcoming brawl with Patriot Prayer. He lied about being hit by a cement milkshake. He has a long history of acting as a provocateur with no interest in objective report in any sense of the word. Helping to incite violence and feigning victim-hood is his MO. Any sentence starting with "Ngo claims" should be immediately disregarded.
The protests here in Portland have been limited to a few square blocks. The constant claims that the city is burning down are obvious hyperbole. And the completely disingenuous comparisons of these actions - however you view them - to terrorists storming the US Capitol to undermine an election is just astounding.
The thing is I don't really care about your ad hominem attacks on the messenger. Ngo posts video evidence and snapshots of arrest records. His Twitter feed is a more or less constant stream of primary evidence, often presented without comment. It speaks for itself. As for limited to a few square blocks, how is that relevant to what I said? The Capitol protests/riots are limited to a few square blocks as well.
Pointing out bias and lying are ad hominmem attacks now? Almost every one of the videos posted to Ngo's twitter are accompanied by his own commentary so I'm not sure how you could claim otherwise. And even if they weren't, I know of at least one specific incident where his sharing of a carefully edited video with missing information created a completely false narrative. His "reporting" has been deeply intertwined with the violence in this city, directly collaborating with violent far right groups, helping to doxx political activists and leading to multiple instances of death threats.
I understand that you're not in Oregon or even the US - and even though Ngo clearly speaks to your politics, he's not an accurate source of information. There's an abundance of information showing that to be the case.
Baloney. First, two wrongs don’t make a right. Anyone in support of this seditious and violent behavior should be ashamed.
Second, you have it backwards. Trump IS an authoritian - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.
Which sadly seems to exactly be the problem.
But I’ll reiterate the facts:
- Zero election fraud.
- President Trump lying and saying fraud existing, that the election is not in fact legitimate, and encouraging a violent mob to storm the capital.
Yes you are absolutely right! Trump bombed innocent kids in Syria after receiving the "Nobel Peace Prize". Trump dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. Trump launched multiple Wars, invaded foreign countries and destroyed millions of lives and livelihood. Isn't it? Trump did all of the things an Authoritarian would do. Hang him for his crimes!
> - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.
I haven't come across an imperialist who did not end up becoming authoritarian or wasn't already an authoritarian. History is witness to what colonialism/imperialism can do to subjects it ends up gaining control over.
The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period.
By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
> The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period.
True. But doesn't stop imperialists from being autocratic in the areas they colonize because no rule of law exists once a regime is toppled and a vacuum created in those regions. It is literally free for all. For a period of time, that occupied area belongs to the imperialist power (unless the power is magnanimous enough to let go of the occupied area and allow the people to determine their fate). But during that period, would the laws of the imperialist power extend to occupied territories? I don't think so. I haven't heard of any such instance in history.
> By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
True as well. But it comes down to not having WMD and threatening the World (case in point: North Korea or even China). So these are autocrats but with their sphere of influence only restricted to their own territory because of lack of military capabilities. Do you seriously think that Lukashenko won't flex his muscle over other neighbouring European countries if he had military capabilities the likes of which US has?
Right, but the question wasn't whether imperialism implies authoritarianism but whether authoritarianism implies imperialism.
Most/all imperialists are authoritarian but many authoritarians aren't imperialists. It's true that Trump doesn't appear to be as imperialistic or hawkish as many previous presidents, but that doesn't imply one way or another anything about potential authoritarianism.
You made an argument that accusations of Trump being an authoritarian are unfounded, but as evidence you cited examples of him not being an imperialist, rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian. Your examples don't preclude the possibility of him potentially being a non-imperialistic authoritarian.
> rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian
Well can you give me a way to find examples of him "not being" an authoritarian? That very question shows how weak your argument is. That you have to clutch at straws to prove he is an autocrat.
Now let me ask you this: Is Putin an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Xi an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Kim Jong-un an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. From targeted assassinations of opposition leaders to detention/containment/concentration/re-education camps you have every single reason to label them autocratic. Can you give examples of Trump being an autocrat? The literal definition of "autocrat" is "someone who has absolute power". Trump doesn't have absolute power. So how does it make him an autocrat?
There are literally many autocrats in this World you can compare against. Trump is definitely a loud mouth. No doubt about it. And he is crass in the way he speaks. He doesn't have a likeable personality. He is a narcissist.
His entire tenure was literally crying about how media treats him, how many in his own party don't support him (RINOs) and how investigations against him vis-a-vis Russian collusion was based on a hoax. Can you name one autocrat who cried about how powerless he is? Have you seen Putin talk this way? Xi talk this way? What about Hitler? Name one autocrat who comes to your mind who has exhibited this behaviour. You can't. This in no way sounds like an autocrat. An autocrat is never this weak and defeatist.
The first thing an autocrat would do is muscle the media. Media thrived under the Trump regime. Constantly berating and attacking him. If this had happened in China or Russia that media house would be non-existent the very next second with all journalists mysteriously missing. If Jack Ma isn't safe you think journalists would be? No ways. This is autocracy for you.
Heck, Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign on the slogan of "Lock her up". Did he do it? On the contrary, the entire scandal was hushed up and the investigative agencies instead focused on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia and Ukraine. I can bet my right limb no investigative agency will investigate Biden on his ties with Ukraine. Why? Because things are back to how it always was. Trump was just an aberration. History will be kinder to him because right now emotions are high and no one wants to see things without filters.
> Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself.
Shame on me? I am no American. I don't need to be ashamed of the mess that USA has become. By the look of it you voted for Obama. So you should be ashamed of a President who had the gall to receive a Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to bomb foreign nations with impunity causing millions to die and be displaced. My country has never invaded other nations and will never do that. I don't need to feel any shame. You need to. On the contrary we fought back tyranny and created a new country called Bangladesh. Could have easily occupied that captured area after overthrowing a tyrannical, oppressive regime and re-integrated it back into our country. We did not do that. That is what separates us from the imperialist developed World.
> I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion.
Well it is quite easy to point fingers at someone while forgetting that three fingers are pointing back at you. If you can criticize Trump I can criticize Obama. I don't need to follow your script of how to respond. I can respond in my own way. Thankfully, the place I come from isn't authoritarian where I have to respond in a certain way else I am shamed/cancelled/rejected/boycotted or worse killed.
I am perfectly fine with media holding Trump accountable. And it should. What I am not okay with is that it is directed only at Trump and everyone else is given a free pass. This I say as an observer of US politics. Media must do its job and be objective. What you see today at the US Capitol is anger spilling out because the Right wasn't even heard and dismissed as something dangerous. When you stifle expression it explodes in unexpected ways. Because people see how ridiculous it is that Trump was made to prove he isn't a supporter of KKK some 35 times while Biden passed racist laws that incarcerated thousands of Black Americans and was given a free pass. Vice President Kamala Harris called Biden a racist during the primaries. Today she has happily taken up the job of being the Vice President under him. If she had an ounce of integrity in her she would have refused to work under a person she herself called a racist. In all this where was the media? No where to be seen. It just wants to milk Trump till the bitter end. Even if it leads to division, violence and destruction. The easiest way to pacify the Right is to hold the Left leaders accountable for their misdeeds too. Balance it. Then you won't have any discontent among any base (be it the left or the right). But media thrives on sensationalism.
Think about it. Obama bombed a foreign nation 26000 times. 26000 times! Did any mainstream media (I am not just talking about CNN here. It includes Fox as well) rake this issue up during his tenure and make a big deal out of it. It did not. Why not? Because everyone got along. The political class, media and diplomats. Everyone were in sync. Trump was an aberration. He did not play by that rulebook. He was an outsider. What Trump has done may not be understood today but history will be kind to him. Once the dust settles and people introspect, they'll realise how fucked up the system had gotten to that it took just 1 orange haired man to shake it all up. And please don't think for once that I am singling out USA. My country has flaws too. Probably a lot more than USA. Just because we don't drone other countries doesn't mean we are perfect. But you can't get to perfection by drowning out the voice of the people. Even if it means 75 million of them who voted for Trump. Trump was just a figurehead for the grievances that those 75 million hold. Those who voted did not vote because they believe in White Supremacy or that they are against immigration or they are fascists. Nor are people in the left communists, socialists and crazy lunatics. This sort of reductionist thinking is what is causing division and spite. In fact, if you look at the voter demographic in this election, Trump lost because he lost the vote of white voters and instead gained in minority communities: Blacks, Latinos and Asians (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-bi...). Why? Why would a racist, white supremacist lose the white vote and gain the minority vote?
Some of what you are saying I agree with and believe is true. Other parts of what you are saying are, I believe, overly reductive and not accurate. I think your post articulates some important points and also overlooks some. But they're also kinda mixed together and there's a lot there, so, tbh, I can't take the time to fully parse out your comment and respond with the kind of clarity one ideally would wish to in an intellectual discussion, the kind you know that would stand up to analysis and reasoned argument. So, do I agree with you? Ehh, yes and no?
Just kind of imagine me saying it with a Larry David voice, if you've ever watched the show 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' (speaking of American cultural imperialism/colonization lol).
> Second, you have it backwards. Trump IS an authoritian - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you.
His last and final tweet was literally to tell everyone to go home and not cause violence. He literally said he wanted peace. Either you haven't listened to it or your hatred is so strong nothing will quench that fire.
Trump could have told them to occupy the building and they would have. He is the first president in my lifetime to not start a new war. He let cities burn and didn't send in any people unless states asked for it.
In what fucked up world do you think Trump is authoritarian?
Um he incited the mob in the first place and his message also praised the mob; he’s a liar and manipulator and this isn’t a time to pretend that his second grade wordplay-cleverness deniability double language actually fools anyone.
He’s the fucking President of the country. He has responsibilities to defend the Constitution and the government and the country. He clearly failed those responsibilities today.
Bring the challenge to court. Say in court, under oath, the allegations that you claim in public. Accept the outcome of those cases. This has happened several times in recent presidential elections without triggering insurgency.
Trump's lawyers played a PR game. They made ostentatious allegations in public, but almost never presented the courts with a viable case -- and notably, didn't claim those allegations in court. The court is obliged to throw out cases without merit, and did so. And that makes it really easy to run out and claim that the court is tossing out your cases without them going to trial.
Only like anything that isn't actually inciting a mob?
Seriously, I can't believe you had good intent and were engaging in good faith with that question because it's so obviously baloney.
You need to think hard about your values, or, educate yourself more about history.
For example:
- Winston Churchill's five-volume history of WWII. Read the first volume of that and you'll understand what is or isn't OK in government, even in exceptional times. You'll also understand what government actually is, and what politics actually is. You'll see what a leader making a difficult and controversial decision, and then taking responsibility for it, actually looks like - in both success and failure.
- Leadership: In Turbulent Times, by Doris Kearns Goodwin. A classic which looks at Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and LBJ at critical moments in their Presidencies and their past experiences which prepared them for success as leaders during a crisis.
If you had read those books, or works of a similar quality, you would know better.
As it stands it just sounds like you don't really understand what responsibility, leadership, accountability, politics, and government actually are.
Or, that you're not interested in those things actually functioning in a just and democratic fashion.
I honestly don't know which it is.
Not to stereotype but I feel like SO many people on HN don't realize just how uneducated they are about history, government, and politics.
OANN/Newsmax delenda est