Assault on the Capitol (DC)

[bob]

Why do you engage those fuckwits? And if their arguments are so weak, why do you have to come ask us how to respond to them?

* * *

Every time some chucklehead says, "DO yOUr OwN ReSeaRcH," I just say I did, and proceed on.

This is especially fun when they make an unsupported claim, e.g., "I did my own research: there's no evidence President Obama seriously said he was born in Kenya; you've provided none."

[Sam the Centipede]

Every time some chucklehead says, "DO yOUr OwN ReSeaRcH," I just say I did, and proceed on.

Your diligent reading of the Post & Efail and your engagement with "DeMaio", Laity, etc. is you "doing your own research" is it, bob?

[Estiveo]

Why do you engage those fuckwits? And if their arguments are so weak, why do you have to come ask us how to respond to them?

[MN-Skeptic]

I am a fan of critical thinking, but covid ruined the phrase "do your own research" for me. It became the battle cry of lazy thinking. Everytime I heard it I wanted to smack them on the forehead. The internet was supposed to help people and give them access to all kinds of knowledge. Instead it has become a vehicle for indoctrination.

No, that isn't it.

There are two situations - either you don't know the answer or you think you know the answer.

If you don't know the answer, you look to the folks that you trust to provide the answer. Some questions are pure fact questions, i.e., how far is it from New York City to Seattle. But other questions will have answers that vary depending on the relied reference, i.e., was Obama a natural born citizen. The lawyers which made sense to me on the internet said that obviously Obama was a natural born citizen. However, there were plenty of folks who looked to who they trusted for answers and came away believing that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

Then there are the folks who think they know the answer and so search the internet for confirmation of their beliefs. Is the economy getting worse? Is crime growing? Who's to blame? Well, if you're a RWNJ, Fox News will obviously confirm your beliefs. If you trust facts and figures, you'll turn to The New York Times or the Washington Post.

So I don't think it's indoctrination so much as belief confirmation. Or, as I concluded years ago - People believe what they want to believe.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

Is Toddler Syndrome a thing? Little kids create scenarios like these.

This is how they explain it.
“ Once again, the CAPITOL RIOT did not disrupt the "election certification." It disrupted the ELECTION CHALLENGES.

There was no reason for Trump to disrupt the election challenges. There is nothing tying Trump to directing the unarmed extremists to commit the futile act of disrupting the election certification.

Then, the SAME DAY as the election certification, Trump said he would step aside for Biden on January 20. And he did.

Trump was IMPEACHED despite any evidence tying him to the Capitol Riot. Disputing election results, for the millionth time, is not a crime. In fact, one might argue that the ability to legally dispute elections is a core aspect of a functional democratic system.

There was no "insurrection." There were legal and constitutional challenges to the 2020 election. Just like Democrats had supported in every presidential election they lost since 2000.”

Why do you engage those fuckwits? And if their arguments are so weak, why do you have to come ask us how to respond to them?

Because I don’t know how to respond to it.

[bob]

Every time some chucklehead says, "DO yOUr OwN ReSeaRcH," I just say I did, and proceed on.

Your diligent reading of the Post & Efail and your engagement with "DeMaio", Laity, etc. is you "doing your own research" is it, bob?

I haven't engaged with anyone in the P&E in months: still baned.

[Slim Cognito]

This is how they explain it.
“ Once again, the CAPITOL RIOT did not disrupt the "election certification." It disrupted the ELECTION CHALLENGES.

I hadn't heard that argument, but if someone were to say it to me I think my response would be:


(deep breath)

[sugar magnolia]

Because I don’t know how to respond to it.

Then why are you arguing with them? It makes no sense at all for you to be arguing against a point if you don't know how to respond.

Then again, it sounds like you're on equal footing with them.

[Ben-Prime]

I mean, I would argue back: "They disrupted a process. This disruption occured in parallel with the lawful challenges to the election but to say that it disrupted the challenges because the challenges were still in play is to deny the fact that they also disrupted the timely resolution of the challenges and thereby the final tabulation of same." But only if I were interested in engaging with such people.

And, as noted, I have decided I no longer have time to engage the self-deluded. Jordan Klepper's videos, while edited for comedic effect, are not lies -- these people are gone, and it's time to focus on engaging the true independents who can be swayed and not the people who play at being independents who like to play devil's advocate for the other side. A true independent does not play devil's advocate for either side except in very short doses; if you spend more than a few conversational passes doing so, you're not really independent, you're just trying to gain debate cred by passing as such.

[bob]

I mean, I would argue back: "They disrupted a process. This disruption occured in parallel with the lawful challenges to the election but to say that it disrupted the challenges because the challenges were still in play is to deny the fact that they also disrupted the timely resolution of the challenges and thereby the final tabulation of same."

I would say, "No defendant charged with any crime related to January 6 raised that as a defense at their criminal trials. If those with skin in the game didn't raise it, why would anyone care what you want?"

Jordan Klepper's videos, while edited for comedic effect, are not lies -- these people are gone, and it's time to focus on engaging the true independents who can be swayed and not the people who play at being independents who like to play devil's advocate for the other side. A true independent does not play devil's advocate for either side except in very short doses; if you spend more than a few conversational passes doing so, you're not really independent, you're just trying to gain debate cred by passing as such.

Exactly: The point of assuming good faith has long passed.

[roadscholar]

Except that there WERE NO LEGITIMATE CHALLENGES. Every State had certified their results. That's the end of it. There were tons of challenges before certification, and they were debunked. The Courts had thrown out the unfounded assertions of the Trumpists as the horse turds they were.

Read the Constitutionally-based Electoral College procedures... once the States certify, the Vice President SHALL accept them and declare the winner. Period.

There were no "challenges" to interrupt. QED.

[bob]

To be most charitable: there's the belief the objections to the count would have been sustained, but for insurrection. In other words, the insurrection cowed enough members to deny the objections.

No one can specify which members were so cowed, but, by golly, some people believe they exist!

[Sam the Centipede]

No one can specify which members were so cowed, but, by golly, some people believe they exist!

Those silenced members must also hold the irrefutable proof – PROOF I SAY!!! – of widespread election fraud in, oh, at least 60 states.

[Dr. Ken]

To be most charitable: there's the belief the objections to the count would have been sustained, but for insurrection. In other words, the insurrection cowed enough members to deny the objections.

No one can specify which members were so cowed, but, by golly, some people believe they exist!

A lot of election deniers I talk to on Twitter have no idea that congress reconvened and rejected the objections. I still see people claiming they never debated the objections then go quiet when I show them the cspan videos

[raison de arizona]

She seems nice.

This is Sara Carpenter, 53 yr old former NYPD who starts her 66 mos sentence tomorrow.

“I’m a fucken animal, I am an animal, I am an animal. You hear me”? Wow…no words!

[Slim Cognito]

Well, she's not wrong.

[DrIrvingFinegarten]

To be most charitable: there's the belief the objections to the count would have been sustained, but for insurrection. In other words, the insurrection cowed enough members to deny the objections.

No one can specify which members were so cowed, but, by golly, some people believe they exist!

There’s no way Congress would find arguments that got laughed out of court 60-plus times persuasive.

[bob]

There’s no way Congress would find arguments that got laughed out of court 60-plus times persuasive.

No one (here) is saying Congress would find them persuasive.

The rando you quoted, however, believes them to be persuasive. And that mind will never be changed.

[raison de arizona]

tsk tsk.

Yeah, well here's why Mrs. Felonious Grandma, this is you breaking in to the US Capitol and trying to steal MY VOTE.

I, a mom & grandmother with no criminal history, have lived like this since #j6. The box on my ankle holding me INSIDE the house, unable to live. In 13 days the government will force me to endure a 51 month sentence because the last 3 years of confinement means nothing.

[sugar magnolia]

Boo fucking hoo.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Actions have consequences.

[RTH10260]

Proud Boys Member Who Helped Prosecution Sentenced in Jan. 6 Attack
Charles Donohoe, one of the members of the extremist group who cooperated with prosecutors, was sentenced to 40 months, slightly more than the time he has already been credited for.

By Alan Feuer and Zach Montague
Dec. 19, 202
A former leader of the Proud Boys who helped the government investigate and prosecute others in the far-right group involved in the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was sentenced on Tuesday to 40 months in prison for his own role in the assault.

His sentence slightly exceeded the nearly 38 months he has been credited for since his arrest after the riot, meaning he is likely to be released in a little over two months.

The former leader, Charles Donohoe, was the first member of the Proud Boys who cooperated with prosecutors to be sentenced for taking part in the Capitol attack.

While Mr. Donohoe, who once ran a Proud Boys chapter in North Carolina, never testified in public against any of his compatriots, his sentence reflected the value that prosecutors placed on his assistance. His cooperation contributed, among other things, to four members of the organization — including its former chairman, Enrique Tarrio — being convicted of seditious conspiracy this spring.

At a two-hour hearing in Federal District Court in Washington, Mr. Donohoe, a 35-year-old former Marine, expressed regret about the part he played in the storming of the Capitol, saying he knew from the outset that his actions were illegal.




https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/p ... tence.html
guest link https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/p ... =url-share

[pipistrelle]

I liked this reply to Powell's whine fest.

Radical Moderate Thug
@paidprovocateur
·
5m
Good news is you’ll be out in time to still experience Biden’s second term.

[Rolodex]

Boo fucking hoo.

She's getting ratio'd pretty severely. LOL

You'd think in the 3 years she's been trapped at home she could have painted that window and the stairs. But I know she's tryna look like she's trapped in a basement.
And on confinement "since J6"? She got arrested and sentenced all on J6? That's some pretty efficient cop and court work.

[bob]

And on confinement "since J6"? She got arrested and sentenced all on J6?

I will (very charitably) assume that's a reference to pre-trial release, which often includes such horrific conditions as: No more criming, not leaving the judicial district without permission, surrendering your passport, periodic meetings with a trial-services officer, maybe abstaining from booze, etc.