It's entertaining how the left was so critical of the use of the word "terrorist" when talking about the War on Terror, but then immediately started throwing it around when it politically expedient.
The FBI says one the biggest threats is domestic terrorism.
> In recent years, federal authorities have described American extremists as the most urgent terror threat to the country and beefed up resources against them, carrying out a wave of prosecutions this year to head off potential violence as the presidential election approached.
"Antifa riots" is a somewhat vague descriptor, but may well be yes, depending on which incident or incidents you're referring to.
Are you sure you haven't heard anyone describe anti-fascist actions as terrorism? I believe Trump himself said as much, several times last year, to wide news coverage.
The "ANTIFA" riots? Can you cite a source for this claim that the black lives matters protests were propagated in any sort of widespread, organized concerted effort by "ANTIFA"? I hear this claim often from Trump supporters but as far as I can tell, they either heard it on talk radio or Fox News. Considering Fox News' coverage of Trump prior to the election, I don't exactly consider them a reliable source. If you could provide a single source for these claims I think that would help your case tremendously.
Otherwise (and I'm so sorry if this sounds condescending), have you considered reflecting on the trustworthiness of the news you tend to digest? I think we can all agree that it's time for the GOP to reflect. Many of them were willing to throw away their principles by repeating Trump's lies that the election was unfair or stolen. Have you not yet arrived at this conclusion finally?
Nobody said anything about BLM. That was just you.
Instead the previous poster was likely refering to the violence and death that happened, at places like the Seattle Cap hill autonomous zone.
Such events included many self identified anarchists. And there absolutely were shootings attacks on a government building during those anarchist riots.
Nothing to do with BLM. Instead, people are referring to the actions taken by anarchists.
> Nobody said anything about BLM. That was just you.
Oh, okay. I had thought I had seen Donald Trump try several times during his speeches to conflate ANTIFA with the BLM movement in order to discredit BLM. Considering we know that a certain number of Trump's base will follow him all the way to treason, I hope you can understand why I might believe they were tricked into thinking this was true.
A reputable source would still be appreciated though. Thanks.
Oh and Biden won less counties than Hillary, which was already low for her (hence her loss). Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states and even then it was only a "win" because a never before seen amount of mail in ballots were used. Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
I'm sorry you're incapable of seeing that this is factually incorrect. I hope that you're able to reflect on this in the next few years as Donald Trump's legacy will be similar to that of Nixon, if not worse. And deservedly so. I don't believe any further conversation will be in the spirit of Hacker News' rules. I'm sorry your leader tricked so many of you and then immediately threw you all under the bus.
At moderation, I realize I've gotten to a point that you may consider "flame bait" and I'll admit, my tensions are high due to the reprehensible nature of many of these comments and how sad I am for my country. I'm happy to have my comment removed of it doesn't follow the guidelines.
There will be no reflection of "Donald Trump's legacy" that is positive for the left. I do not watch CNN or fox news, or get my "news" from twitter. For the last 5 years, I've mostly kept in touch with reality through youtube. There were tons of independent journalists that I followed. Some that were covering the election had paid subscriptions to pollster data and software. They could drill down into county level and precinct level data and it was shocking to see vote totals that exceeded the population of the entire precinct! You could go back historically and see every election 2016,2012, etc and see the turnout rates were always 50-70%. It was these precincts that flipped the entire state from red to blue. I thought surely this would be going into audit and court territory and did not bother to save the data or videos as I figured "all would come into the light".
Then youtube banned all these channels. They were not even republican! They were banned for comparing voter turn out numbers with data they paid money to access! Fast forward to this last week. I'm watching another youtube journalist interviewing people at the Jan 6th protest. She was mostly talking with older people, asking what made them show up, etc. There was music, food, and people just generally hanging out. I go back to work for the rest of the day and ignored the news cycle only to get a notification of her posting another video later in the evening about how she just found out about the siege on the capitol. She was there and knew nothing about until getting back to the hotel! And then the entire left wing media labels the event as terrorists and white supremacists. Her next video the next day was about her now being on a no fly list and couldn't get on a plane. Now her entire channel is deleted and I have no idea what happened to her! All this for interviewing grandmas at a protest!
My entire way of getting news for the last 5 years is now non-existent. And you tell me that I am supposed to "reflect" on this? That somehow because I don't drink everything that CNN makes up means I need to be removed from society? That I should only get my news from one "official" source?
I try to engage with people on the left, and it's always "show me the proof!". I had great proof, and numbers, but the left removed it all and now I have nothing and am told the BLM protests were so much more honorable than the capitol protest when all of the videos on youtube of people organizing through facebook and telegram groups with slogans of "good cops are dead cops" are now also deleted and people act like the protests never happened. We do not have a state run media in america, but it is clear that we have a media run state and every one on the left is the very definition of 'Koristne Budale'. All the way to the point of voting for a man who the KKK applauded in the 60's for his pro segregation policies. Now he is somehow the face of "anti racism" and "defund the police" when in the 90's he pushed for the death penalty for repeat drug offenders.
Why don't you try a thought process? How would you feel if it was herds of trump supporters marching through cities lighting everything on fire for 6 months while everyone talked about how peaceful they where? So you think, "We'll show them come Nov 4th". And on Nov 4th, Biden takes an immediate lead only to loose in the middle of the night because Trump's "mail in ballots just arrived" and there's no need to check signatures. And then it bounces around the courts for nearly two months, none of them speaking on the matter at hand, but instead claiming that somehow it is not the court's problem to solve. So you attend a protest at the capitol only to be labeled as a terrorist because some really fringe people were all the media focused on. You'd be absolutely loosing your mind. If you think it feels bad being on the left, trying being on the right!
Oh and Trump is not my leader. It took him two weeks before he started talking about the numbers I had on the 5th. He in many cases this year has been late to the game. Our only hope is extreme voter reform, but the democrats love a loose ballot. They do not orchestrate fraud, they only make sure the pool stays too muddy to clean.
We are about to have 80 million americans that will never see Biden or the DNC as legit. It will be like fighting over Jefferson Davis all over again.
I hope you reflect deeply. I've been an agnostic, a leftist, a libertarian. Telling me to get enlightened and go back ain't happening.
Sorry, but I don't have a response for you that is in the spirit of this site's rules. Namely, that conversation should be interesting. Have a nice day.
>Oh and Biden won less counties than Hillary, which was already low for her (hence her loss).
why is this relevant? electoral college votes (and population, if you care about the popular vote) isn't distributed by counties.
>Biden under performed in every state except for 5 key swing states
Can you define "underperformed"?
>Perhaps they were fake, or perhaps people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box. Still against state law either way.
If you're going to go with the election fraud claim, at least provide evidence rather than just beating around the bush. Also, please cite how "people that would never set foot in a voting place were fine with circling "biden" on a mail in ballot and dropping it back in the mail box" is against state law.
>Oh and very few ballots were contested due to signature mismatches. Funny because Obama won his senate seat in the 90's by having a team canvas all of his competitors primary ballots and had them whittled down until he was the only one running for the office that year.
How is this relevant? Is there a process for invaliding signatures that the republicans haven't invoked? Do democrat voters' signatures get invalidated at a higher rate than republicans? Is the "normal" invalidation rate high enough to surpass biden's lead in the key states?
“Not being taken seriously”? They are all being tracked down and arrested. Put on no fly lists. New legislation is being drafted to address domestic terrorism. All of their social media platforms are being shut down.
What does this author mean by “not being taken seriously”?
“Enjoyed”, past tense, while they were openly plotting terrorism and insurgency.
Once they executed it, that stopped (mostly, though people—including here on HN—are still arguing that they shouldn't be taken seriously.) But, had they been taken seriously when plotting murder and Insurrection in the open, it could have been disrupted before they swarmed the Capitol, or even showed up in D.C.
> I’m reading the FBI warned the Capitol police about it ahead of the rally.
I’m reading now that anonymoust “senior law enforcement officials” are claiming that, even though the FBI already, after the event, said they had no intelligence that anything beyond First Amendment protected activity was planned or likely to occur. So either the FBI was previously lying on the record to make themselves look bad, or officials that won’t go on the record are lying to place the blame for failures on the Capitol Police after the head of the Capitol Police resigned at the request of the Speaker, so that responsibility is on a head that has already rolled.
At this point the partisan hyperbole is thick enough that one can take a look at the title, domain name and reliably predict the content of the article.
It would be encouraging if individuals could take the media and political institutions 'seriously'. Instead, as you observe, the divisions are being driven deeper. Dissenters are being labeled terrorists. Those who wear there tolerance on their shirt sleeves can't tolerate disagreement. They claim that only intolerant people disagree.
If 50k+ people march on the Capitol Building, at what point are the politicians within responsible for failing to represent their interests? Isn't that a basic premise of democracy, that violence will be averted by proportional representation?
If half the country finds no credibility in media reportage, at what point are reporters responsible?
Was there nothing else that the media or the political establishment could have done to address the public's concerns and add legitimacy to the process? Or is it simply enough to dismiss them all as terrorists?
Obviously this strategy hasn't worked thus far, yet the establishment seems keen on doubling down.
According to the narrative I've seen, the above non sequiturs should be ignored. The circumstances are special. It is all the work of an exceptional conman. The people have been deceived because they are not as intelligent or compassionate as their betters. Of course, you dear reader are part of the in-group. Allow me to throw you some platitudes as I demonize the others. Our form of tribalism is nothing like theirs.
This time is different, but it is also the same as that other time. That time another political figure kept repeating the same lie. Be sure that is not our tribe repeating lies about the out-group. Did I mention that this time is different?
