Just as with the Russia Bounty debacle, they will never acknowledge what they did. Their audience wants to be lied to for partisan gain and emotional pleasure.
So when I share Greenwald’s columns with leftist friends and family they don’t respond to the substance they just say something to the effect that they don’t understand what has happened to him. As if reporting the facts as he sees them is eq uivalent to having fallen victim to a disease. There really is nothing to say to these people. I disagree with Some of Greenwald’s positions but I am eternally grateful that he is willing to look carefully at these e vents and report the facts. That is what real journalists do!
Having mentioned Glenn’s reporting to a liberal acquaintance from college, I was given a retort of “Greenwald carries water for Trump and makes it harder to get rid of him.”
The truth doesn’t matter. We’ve become truly postmodern and power is the only metric left because there is no possibility of agreement on anything objective anymore.
I've had a similar experience with liberal relatives.
I ask probing questions about their beliefs, intended to challenge their thinking.
One of them, who always starts the discussion through an email with a link to an article from the NYT or some such, just ignores the questions.
The other, a niece who graduated from William and Mary, flat-out says she doesn't want to answer those kinds of questions.
They've chosen a team, for whatever reason. It's like being a Pittsburg Steelers Fan, or something, but way worse. Nothing, nothing you can ask them is going the challenge their belief their team is the greatest.
I think this has been true for a while, and during the Trump years this type of political polarization has become much more so. I find that those who identify as liberals are often extremely dogmatic in their beliefs and are closed off to any opposing points of view, and often become angry should you have a political position different then their own. I consider myself liberal, and always have, but should you see shades of grey in issues those "liberals" will too often go on an attack. Everything to them is black or white.
You've never seen a dogmatic conservative "open to any opposing point of view?" All of us -- Libs and Conservatives -- are being misled on damn near everything pertaining to our government. I don't trust anyone -- certainly nothing coming from the intelligence community (Thank you Glenn G.) I would trust the inate goodness of a friend who is a liberal than I would anyone in government -- Trump's or Bidens.
Yes, of course, but that's a given, and in the past I always experienced liberals as much more open and receptive to different opinions, interested in the truth, however during the Trump years I saw an end to that, more or less, and now the positions of too many liberals is quite dogmatic, and not only that they express utter contempt for those whose perspective on things are somewhat different. No longer are there shades of grey in their world. Of course I am not referring to all liberals, but too many of them can be defined that way in 2021.
When the actual war criminals from Republican Party like Bush, Liz Cheney, Rick Snyder etc join and endorse the author of the crime bill Biden, then that party is no longer abiding to the dictionary definition of a liberal which is "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
My friends from high school who were "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republicans in the '80's are mostly Democrats now. I left the Democrats about the same time Warren left the Republicans to become a Democrat. Both parties are too conservative for me. I wonder how many other liberals of my generation left the Democrats and became independents or other, and how many Republicans became Democrats?
Well, it's during that time and before that the democrats really shifted toward the right, and by the time Clinton was through with the party it was no longer a party of the working class, or liberal in any way shape or form. I stuck it out and voted for Obama only to find out he was no progressive. I didn't vote for Trump, but definitely not for Clinton. In these last four years I've seen rather normal people become unhinged at the mere mention of Trump, and a black and white world evolve. I think the democrats more then anyone helped to create that divide. I was just reading that Chelsea Clinton want's Tucker Carlson removed from Facebook, but I didn't finish the article, but what the hell?
True to human nature, I was a Dem when young at heart, and a Conservative when I grew a brain. I left the the Dems when they started blaming the soldiers for Vietnam (me a returning babykiller among them) and when in 1974 they decided to have the SCOTUS choose a national infanticide shield law (Roe) instead of letting the states deal with the issue. I know that issue is personal to everyone. I have daughters and a wife. But my argument has always been process, not policy. I do not want SCOTUS as an alternative legislature deciding issues that cannot make it through the legislative process on their own merit.
It is like trying to de-bunk a religion. The adherents become very angry and in some cases violent. No remorse for any persons they attack or injure because like any ideologue a liberal never sees others as individuals but as part of some "group." That group is either with them or against them and is always treated as an enemy who must be destroyed for them to prosper and survive. Best to stay far away since these ideologues are a bit dangerous and cannot be reasoned with.
I was watching Debbie Wasserman-Shultz spew incredible hatred about Trump, and how he brought Naziism to America. She was full of rage, and spitting hate, almost unbelievable. Alright, she's crazy and does illegal things, and not to be trusted, but what I couldn't believe was to hear Norm Chomsky a while back saying President Donald Trump’s supporters at his rallies remind him of listening to the crowds at Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies. This is how so the called political left defined the right, and polarized this country. To be a liberal no longer means your open-minded, tolerant, or progressive. It's become very dogmatic in it's beliefs. A cousin referenced Trump supporters as a cultish, uneducated lot who totally lacked any sense of morality, and his mother agreed. I couldn't help myself and responded by saying how do so called liberals sum up some 70 million people in one sentence and define them all as amoral and a cultish lot?
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka most Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling.
And I am not saying this to criticize democrats for political gain, I am saying this because this pendulum has chances of swinging to other side one day and then don't be surprised if everything they are supporting right now comes back to bite them in the ass one day.
That was interesting, Thanks for that link. I think the democrats trust the media more because in the last few years it's fed them what they wanted and demanded to hear which was anti-Trump rhetoric if not all out hate. I was always a registered democrat, but not always a voter, now I'm an independent. I stayed a democrat even knowing they really no longer represented the working class and unions, the people. However their Trump lies and hate turned me off because I came to see them as very authoritarian and willing to do anything even in breech of the constitution to oust him from office.
It's a cult, a partisan nationalistic cult. And there are cultists of both parties. It makes it easier for the ruling class to keep the working class in line. 90% of the media is owned by six corporations. They control the narrative. They fear monger to the left about the conservatives and Russia. They fear monger to the right about transgender folks and communism/socialism/"the left". They keep the working class divided against itself and powerless against oppression.
It's not their fault. They can't help it. The status quo is not a system of thought. It primarily isn't thought at all. It's an internalized pattern of cognition. Those who are tasked with designing the systems of manipulation for controlling the public mind know that.
While it does matter when status quo lies are exposed, or challenging questing questions are asked, as long as the narrative is persistently supported, the cognitive pattern will remain very difficult to challenge on a large enough scale to deactivate it.
I never thought of being liberal as having a religious perspective of the world, but most definitely a willingness to respect or accept behavior, or opinions different from my own, and having a more progressive perspective on things. I don't find that to be the case today as much as it was in the past.
"The case today" aren't liberals but neo-liberals - that's who you're referring to.
Due to their emergence on the scene, I've declined from describing myself as "liberal", though I once did, and now prefer "Progressive" because it's a distinctly different perspective, and one that mostly ignores a lot of the crap and tries to focus on _progress_ for the average citizen and the world writ large.
Art, not sure if you are equating liberal with neo-liberals in your first sentence. I agree that progressive is a good way to describe oneself, but liberal is another way to say progressive. True liberal has taken on a new meaning which today doesn't seem to mean much. However when Obama ran in 2008 everyone defined him as a progressive, and he was seen that way through his 8 years in office. Well I certainly didn't see him that way.
"when Obama ran in 2008 everyone defined him as a progressive,"
Sorry, that's laughably wrong. I remember HOPING he was progressive but saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall by paying close attention to his very specific word choice, such as saying we'd have to "make" him ("make me") take specific actions on one topic or another.
He was in no way a Progressive, more a "centrist Republican" as he later, in his second term, admitted openly on more than one occasion.
"he was seen that way through his 8 years in office."
Only by those who refused to see what was in front of their eyes and somehow missed Obama's own statements about himself.
"Well I certainly didn't see him that way."
THAT, I can surely believe!
As for the meaning of liberal, it has changed in this century's America, FROM the meaning you ascribe to something heinous, and this change in the meaning of the word is accompanied by a seriously well funded propagandistic effort to keep us fighting one another by really moving a whole population of what USED TO BE "left" to a seriously right-wing, authoritarian perspective - the howling protestations to the contrary by local commenters here be damned. The right-wingers who comment here refuse to understand their perceptions of what's left has been manipulated right along with all those former left people - or who are too young to have hadn any real grounding in left and were herded into becoming neo-liberals - who have been transformed into what the left actually loathes, the very antithisis of left-ism. And, that's by design, to both extinguish any real left AND to keep us all fighting one another instead of realizing our common enemy, the ulta-rich, and unifying to defeat them (which we simply must do to save the current biosphere).
What I find even more disturbing is the level of anger from liberal relatives should you question their position (especially god forbid with facts). I like the Dodgers but I'm not angry to the point of ostracizing you if you support the Yankees. Well, maybe a little.
Ms or Mr. Incarnate.......I just wrote a comment above and your experience is duplicate of mine. Glad to hear I am not alone. Here is part of my comment:
"I have had the same experience with demographically elite progressive friends. I have shown them data contravening what they say and think (on police shootings, especially police shootings) and they ignore them or refuse to acknowledge their existence."
I know your response was to a different post, but I responded to him as well. In terms of the issue you refer to there is only one response and no one is allowed to challenge or question it less one be called a racist. It seems liberals have quickly fallen into line willing to listen to orders dictated by the media, democrats, and the corporate world. This does not serve the interest of the people of this country, black white, or any other color.
If they claim to be “democratic socialists” I take them at their word. And in today’s world it does appear you can be both. One thing they are not is liberal.
He didn't "make stuff up" he asked that you let him guess. But I'll make something up, your non-response means he's probably more or less correct - I'm sure there is a wiggle word or competing definitions affecting the precision of his guess, but he's more or less accurate.
Really? You're haggling over the semantics of "guess" vs "fabricate" in a statement that failed to demonstrate any relevance to what he was replying to? I'm not here to chase other people's red herrings so they can change the subject of the conversation to something they're more comfortable with. If Eric can't demonstrate how his "guess" is relevant to my comment, that has nothing to do with me.
And your doubling down on irrelevance as some verification of it's truth value is as stupid as it sounds (to one who can think in rational terms).
It's the lack of remorse and accountability that infuriates me. The last screenshot, of the NYT saying "With a bloody gash in his head ..." which is clearly an outright lie. They will never apologize, never think they did anything wrong.
The Officer Sicknick story was so inflammatory that it caused me to take leave of my senses. But several hours later, when I calmed down, I reflected on whether the story made sense. It seemed to me that the Capitol insurgents/rioter/protesters (whatever) were not at all the types to bash a police officer's skull. Now several months later, the entire affair has reminded me not to jump to an emotion-driven conclusion based on a media story and quite frankly to distrust the media with every bone in my body. It is truly disgusting how reporters seems to have no qualms about bald-faced lying to the public.
It's a HUGE reminder to "look at your source." These days, their agenda is so ingrained into their DNA, you basically have to question every story the MSM produces. The more damaging the story, the more likely it is a lie.
I felt the same way after the reporting of the Covington kids at the March for Life. Any rational person should have taken pause and waited for more information as it just didn't pass the smell test. There are still media and even members of Congress who are grasping at that false narrative. Same with the whole "Kyle Rittenhouse is a White Supremacist" fear porn. Yeah, the 17 year old was picking up trash, putting out fires and playing first responder. All the hallmarks of a crazed spree-killer.
I also forgot one of the biggest whoppers of all....Jessie Smollet was beat up by Trump supporters screaming that Chicago is MAGA country. How long did they run with that and some still are?
I'm sorry to say that I've concluded I cant trust anything the media says unless it can be objectively verified. I have become much more cynical than I ever though I would.
I always take a breather whenever I read anything by any news source where people are "up in arms" or politicians make blanket "this is evil" statements. Take what happened in Ferguson, or the Russian bounty story that Glenn mentioned, or the Georgia election/Trump official story that was completely discredited when the audio recording came out. I have so many friends on the left and right both that I can hear what the "narrative is" for each, but try (hard, too hard sometimes!) to see through the rhetoric and find the truth. But it's not always easy and it takes so much time, that I appreciate Glenn more than he can possibly know. Because even if I don't always agree, I know he's not feeding me BS.
The timing of this release is not coincidental. With multiple other things consuming the news cycle, it was obviously decided to let this out now as opposed to during the hearings about the “insurrection.”
I think it’s interesting that the postmodernists seem to be the most fervent in their beliefs these days. The primary tenet of postmodernism, that nothing is truly knowable, undercuts that certainty.
Nothing like half of the US reads the NY Times. Most of the country does not read a newspaper. Of those that do, USA Today is the favorite, followed closely by the WSJ (which is probably the only one that makes money). NYT isn't in the top 4 by paid circulation. Total paid subscriptions of newspapers you've heard of is probably less than 15MM (ignoring enterprise-wide licenses).
USA Today has been a shopper from the beginning. I worked for Gannett in New York back then and the news room got a big laugh until it started stealing reporters. Then it pulled out of the Audit Bureau over free hotel copies. Then G went on to destroy every small-town newspaper it could get its hands on.
So, what we are left with is this: The capitol "rioters" killed no one. Not a single weapon was found on any of them. Stories about zip tie handcuffs already have been thoroughly rebutted. That's the closes to a weapon they could get. And, anyone watching that day, or catching up on YouTube before they pulled it down, could see security personnel moving stanchions and waving "rioters" in, then opening the doors of the capitol and letting still more in.
This wasn't a riot. It was a spectacle organized by the media to fit a narrative. I've know that since Day 1. It just took a while for all the evidence to be assembled.
It was dumb! If Trump couldn't offer real evidence of fraud, what was he thinking -- that thousands of his supporters could take over the government by pushing, yelling and screaming their way into the capitol. What would they have done if they had, in fact, cornered Pelosi or Pence? That's not the way it is done -- by either dimmicrats or raypooblicans.
There's plenty of evidence of election fraud and unconstitutional law changes. But I am not going to get into that because I believe that nobody's mind can be changed on that now. Simply ask yourself if you believe that Biden got 12 million more votes than Obama (most popular president)? And was it a co-incident that all 6 states stopped counting at exactly the same time on election night?
As for Trump - I am not a fan of his because he didn't pardon Assange, Snowden etc. But anyone who tells you he incited the Capitol stuff is lying to you. I watched it all go down live. Trump was speaking and on stage till 1:15PM. Capitol was breached at 12:40PM according to WaPo (anti trump source). It is nearly 1.5mi from the Ellipse to the Capitol, at least 30-40 min walk. Anyone who claimed his speech was inciting anything at the Capitol is hiding the truth that the Capitol was breached 45 minutes before Trump's speech ended and 40 minute walk away.
There is more than ample evidence that this election was "fortified" (to use Time magazine's Newspeak phrase.) Secondly, Trump did NOT ask his supporters to do what you are insinuating that he did. I'm trying to figure out the purpose of your post and there doesn't appear to be one.
You are simply wrong about what Trump did on 01/06. Just for the record, he never called Nazis "good people" and he never "urged his followers to ingest household disinfectants," as the idiotic Bill Maher said with a straight face the other night.
Then maybe our state representatives should review very severely the J-schools. If people in the media don't want to learn to tell the truth and prefer to prevaricate, they can always run for political office.
Medical Student EXPELLED for questioning "Micro-Aggressions" Can SUE University. This case would make Kafka jealous. Here's the full breakdown of the judgment allowing Kieran Bhattacharya to sue University of Virginia.:
And this tidbit of truth comes on the heels of Maxine Waters' call to violence in Minnesota - for which she'll never receive as much as a slap on the wrist from those who impeached Trump for less.
The judge in the Chauvin case has already admitted to the defense that Waters just gift wrapped them an appeal and presented it on a silver platter by running her mouth. The jury should have been sequestered from the beginning.
Maybe not. But at the very minimum, Chauvin was negligent and complicit in Floyd’s death. Fentanyl or not, Floyd was subdued and at the point that occurred, the police hold some responsibility for his safety.
The real question is whether or not the state overcharged him on purpose or just out of incompetence.
I've watched all the videos and can't see Chauvin is either negligent or complicit. Police are not medics or doctors. Floyd and his choices are responsible for his death. If anyone is complicit, blame the unruly and threatening crowd that delayed effective medical attention for Mr. Floyd, although he may well have died as a result of his drug consumption and comorbidities regardless of medical intervention. Floyd resisted all attempts to get him into the squad car. Chauvin's job was to control and detain Floyd. Street-wise habitual criminals like Floyd are adept at tactics like yelling "I can't breathe" and "I'm cooperating while in fact no cooperating." Nine minutes seems like a long time sitting at your laptop; not so much if you are trying to control a 6'4" 240lb criminal surrounded by a threatening crowd.
My order of blame for the Floyd incident lies on 1. His drug dealer friend with him who told him to swallow the drugs (and might have even gotten him to use the counterfeit bills but he pleaded the 5th), then the crowd, especially the mma guy, then Floyd himself.
"I've watched all the videos and can't see Chauvin is either negligent or complicit. Police are not medics"
Apparently you missed the part where there was an EMT on the scene - a woman who is a part of the local fire department who was specifically called on scene to deliver aide - who Chauvin explicitly turned away when she offered to help. She witnessed the whole thing and her testimony was damning.
Yeah, cops AREN'T medics, but don't they have a responsibility to listen to one who's already on scene and who indicates action is needed at that moment and they're there to provide it? You rightwingers are bloodthirsty with blind rage and lose your common sense.
Nope. Thanks for the attack but you seem to be blind to the rest of what she admitted in cross examination. She admitted that they prefer to load and go if the crowd around them show signs of aggression and when she was shown pics of the mma guy literally being held back by another dude with his eyes all red, shouting at them “pussy, I will f you up” etc, then it’s not safe for them. The scene must be cleared and safe before they can administer aid.
I would say your bias is what’s clouding your judgement. I am someone whose opinion changed from Chauvin guilty to him not guilty. His drug dealer in the car who told him to swallow drugs, the crowd and Floyd himself took his life.
It’s also interesting you accuse others of being blood thirsty when you are yourself okay with a lynch mob run by democrat politicians like Maxine waters and governor of MN to literally threaten a jury, especially when the judge is so stupid to not even sequester the jury in such a high profile case. One day you or someone you love may have their fifth amendment rights violated of a fair trial and due process and then you will learn the lesson that defending rights of those you hate is even more important than everything else. This is kangaroo court stuff and exactly what happens in third world countries.
These type of ignorant comments clearly show that most people didn’t even watch the trial or only watched the edited clips and have zero facts with them.
Watching the trial changed my mind on all of that. I went from him being guilty back when it happened to maybe guilty of some charges when the full body cam video was leaked to now "not guilty on any charges" after the trial.
There has been a coup, an insurrection, under way for five years. It started with the FBI investigating and harassing Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, General Flynn, and Donald Trump. The military-industrial complex has secretly run the government since the assassination of JFK and Trump was a threat.
Their allies in the media reported negatively on Trump more than 90% of the time, with Carl Bernstein repeatedly saying whatever Trump had done in every passing week was "worse than Watergate". The corrupt politicians James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Adam Schiff lied to congress, lied to the American people, and made the voters believe that Trump colluded with Russia. When that lie was exposed, they called Trump a Russian spy. Finally, just before the 2020 election, they spread the fake story that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill American soldiers.
At the same time, riots spread all over the nation, co-ordinated by Marxists and anarchists who communicated by Twitter, Facebook, and with their Smart Phones. Pallets of bricks mysteriously showed up a pre-arranged riot sites so that bricks could be thrown at police.
Crooked politicians ordered their police departments to step down and not enforce the laws. Crooked DA's let criminals out of jail without bail and Kamala Harris' team paid the bail for those who weren't let out free.
When Hunter Biden's laptop was discovered, it was called "Russian disinformation" and to this date no one has questioned him about the pictures or the emails that implicate him and his father in criminal actions.
Now, America is run by mobs. I saw the governor of Minnesota on television tonight and he stressed how important it is to "reimagine" the racist police forces in America. Specifically, he said that no one should be killed for driving a car without a legal registration. Somehow, he forgot to mention that George Floyd broke a Federal law by trying to pass counterfeit money and that he resisted arrest. Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis today and said that if Derek Chauvin is not convicted of the most serious charges against him, the people should riot.
Whether there is a hung jury or whether Chauvin is found guilty of the least serious charge, even if he is found guilty of the most serious charge, there will be nationwide riots (because his attorney will certainly appeal any conviction based on Maxine Waters' statement and the fact that Chauvin couldn't get a fair trial in Minneapolis).
Critical Race Theory is being taught in secondary schools and 108,000 illegal aliens have been apprehended at the southern border in the past three months - up from 9,000 in 2020.
Meanwhile, Russia has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's border and MASH units have been set up to the expected wounded casualties. China is doing daily fly-overs of Taiwan to test the willingness of the USA to protect our ally.
Reading the comments below and Glenn's latest article, the words that come to mind are 'cognitive dissonance'. When leftists are confronted with FACTS from very credible sources they suffer from the above mentioned affliction. The only way to solve it is to do one of 2 things. Accept the truth and make an informed and rational response to their partisanship while taking the political grifters and liars into account. Or 2, as many on the thread below have shown and our media have clearly shown - Ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their ideological political cult and claim the offenders are liars or racists - whichever fits better.
This is the state of politics today. As Glenn has previously said the left (and some on the right) have turned politics into their religion and can no longer debate or listen to sound arguments that oppose their ideological agendas.
America's enemies are laughing at what weak-minded fools many of us have become. Rightfully so.
One thing that Trump did get right. Not all - but MANY in the press are the enemy of the people but only the people whom they disagree with politically. They will lie, cheat, steal be on the take for their leftist religion and the majority our news is pathetically 'spun' in every way. Every story.
We need writers like Glenn Greenwald who believes in fairness and open dialogue to form a coalition of REAL JOURNALISTS. America needs REAL JOURNALISTS now more then ever.
So, they can now finally call them "rioters" instead of "insurrectionists." Man, that term always galled me since they knew full well there was never any insurrection.
But hey, never let a crisis go to waste. Even if you have to make it up.
Keep hammering them, Glenn. Who knows, you may even make a few journalists out of that gaggle of agenda pushers.
Meh - the Associated Press still refers to the recession as "The Great Recession" - as if that's a universally accepted term. The only people I know who call the recession The Great Recession are reporters for the AP ...
Since I am white, I started to do the same thing (Black/white), sarcastically. What else but riot am i suppose to do in the face of such blatant racism.
I know, right? I mean in this case, (and hopefully going forward? who knows...) The WaPo must have rather have had a root canal than use "rioters" - but they did.
I know, that was my point, but my fault for being confusing. The vast majority of law-breakers on Jan. 6 are only guilty of trespassing, and even the trouble-makers were un-armed. Watch the lying media, if they ever feel they must backtrack from "rioters," they still won't tell this whole truth.
I was pleased to read your take at the end of this piece. We know the officer was survived by his mother. I'm not sure what other close family he had, but I'm sure there were others. Tragically he died at the young age of 42. The media and Dem exploitation of his death can only have caused his poor mother and family greater pain. You hear it often - parents are not supposed to outlive their children. It's just beyond reprehensible. These vultures have very dark souls.
It is possible that the anti-rioting that Sicknick helped thwart on January 6th contributed to a stroke, but I've known marathoners who, out training one day, suffer strokes and die. I wonder how much pressure the DC Medical Examiner was under to find SOME link to the rioting.
Stress could have played a part. But, unfortunately, I'm afraid Sicknick's day were numbered. Two strokes with blood clots at his brain stem, at 42. Those clots were ticking time bombs.
If I was the Sicknick family, I would be inclined to SUE the shit out of every MSM outlet that pushed those lies.
Secondly, I read your Twitter thread about this and was genuinely shocked to see people FLAT OUT DENY that this lie ever happened. It is the most blatant cognitive dissonance I've ever seen!
And for WHAT??? The Democrat fascist party is hardly worth defending in any way!
In my view, the entire Capitol "incident" was a false flag. I saw video of the Capitol police literally waving protesters in. The dude wearing the horns and all of them taking selfies with Capitol police, etc., reminded me of a very poorly organized PLAY. I missed the part where Ashley Babbit was shot, but the rioters reminded me of ANTIFA/BLM as those of us here in Portland, Oregon are very familiar with their antics. It looked to me as if these characters were brought in to give the effect of an "insurrection" that Democrats wanted. All of this so that the GOP could not present to American voters, proof of ELECTION FRAUD..
Biden won more votes than Obama? Bwa-HAHAHAHAHA! A guy who campaigned in his basement and whose rallies couldn't fill a broom closet won the election? Come on, Man! The theft of the election was nothing new to Dems, having cheated Sanders out of 2 primaries. Instead much later Time Mag treats us to an op-ed where it was explained that the election was "fortified" by a shadowy cabal of players.
The coup wasn't the Antifa embiciles who ran all the chaos at the Capitol, it was the election itself. What happened at the Capitol was to DISTRACT from election fraud...er,..uh...fortifying.
The entire MSM is completely pathological. One big sociopath. I stopped watching ALL of it in 2016, with the exception of Tucker once in awhile.. and I watch only when he addresses shit like this while the others won't. I'm an Independent, not wedded to either party, yet the countless times I've been berated as a white supremacist, a right winger, etc when calling out Dem party/MSM falsehoods is too numerous to count.
I am SO grateful for your commitment to truth, Glenn even though I know you yourself have been berated when in pursuit of the truth. We need more journalists who do this and have integrity. And while MSM does not, I implore people to do the healthiest thing for themselves (and society as a whole) and turn that shit off. Doing so will allow the daylight of reality to shine through. Sad state of affairs. Excellent article. Shared!
How is making Sicknick a martyr libel or slander? And keep in mind the New York Times v. Sullivan rule -- you can lie in newspaper and media stories as long as you observe the full heart empty head rule. If you are stupid, fail to interview others about the truth, don't care about accuracy but are not malicious or intentional in your carelessness, "absent malice" protects you from suit. Sicknick's mother became a public figure by trying to stop the lies.
I take issue with this: “...Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱).”
Unarmed does not *not dangerous.*
It would seem the cop was justified as she was attempting to breach the broken glass doors in the barricaded Speaker's Lobby - outside the Chamber, which was occupied by Capitol staff and members of Congress- and had a riotous, angry, and loud mob of people behind her.
take issue with this: “...Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱).”
Unarmed does not *not dangerous.*
+++
She was unarmed. That's a fact. I wasn't commenting on whether the shooting was nonetheless justified under the circumstances, though I do think it's ironic that the whole point of the summer protests was that cops should stop shooting unarmed people, including in protests and even riots where violence is sometimes used.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it. With that said, I also think police shootings need to be looked at depending upon the circumstances.
At least the "cops are hunting down blacks" narrative is bs for sure.
I researched this in 2020. These are also sourced from WaPo - as leftists as they come. WaPo has logged all fatal police shootings since 2015 in this database:
Despite their headline, the data tells you a different story. In 2019 there were a total of 999 killings. 858 shootings in which the race was noted. 405 killed were white, 249 were black. Blacks were significantly more likely to have a deadly weapon than a white suspect. Yet more white suspects were killed. There were ONLY 12 cases where the blacks were unarmed - 11 men and 1 women. 7 of these cases - the suspect attacked the cop with eyewitness or camera footage corroboration confirming it. Out of the rest - 1 was an apparent accident. 2 cases - the cop was charged. The others were ongoing investigation when I researched this last year.
One can figure out themselves if in a population of over 360 million, these numbers are anything close to "police are hunting down blacks" or not.
Is there a particular reason why you used the outdated data which relies on under-counting since many police/sheriff jurisdictions do not inform FBI of fatal shootings, rather than the more accurate data which sleazy WaPo know uses? The link is on the WaPo page you linked to:
"Although half of the people shot and killed by police are White, Black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans. Hispanic Americans are also killed by police at a disproportionate rate."
The figures are then broken down to reveal Black amerikans are killed by 'law enforcement' at a rate of 32 persons per million per year, 2019 total 1497 black humans killed out of a total population of 42 million humans.
Hispanic amerikans are killed at a rate of 27 persons per million per year, Total 2019, 1,052 Hispanic humans killed out of a total population of 39 million humans.
White amerikans are killed at a rate of 15 per million per year. 2019 total is 2884 humans killed out of a total population of 197 million humans.
Whichever way anyone tries to cut it Black amerikans are more likely to be shot by police than hispanics and far more likely to be killed by police than white amerikans.
They are more likely because centuries of structural rascism has left higher proportion of African amerikans born into poverty than either Hispanic or white amerikans.
We should all know that 'law enforcement' is specifically designed to protect the rich & oppress the impoverished.
Ordinary people had banks and other financial institutions blatantly take their homes from them since 2008, no one has been charged, much less questioned for that egregious criminality, more likely they copped a bonus!
Yet a poor person found to have a joint or a toot on him/her, solely for their own use, gets tossed in the jug and onto the amerikan gulag conveyor belt every hour of every day in amerika. That is lucky - unlucky is being shot and killed by one of these over-paid (eg Long Island cops average more than $200,000 per year in pay), protectors of the rich. When asked wy the poor person was shot, all the cop has to say is "he/she was carrying drugs" and that is the end of the matter. For poor amerikans life is not very different than the life of poor people in Victorian London - minor crimes can carry the death penalty without trial, just at the whim of the oppressors' thugs.
outdated data? I literally put a link to the 2019 data which I researched during the 2020 riots. How is that outdated?
Rest of your comment including terms like "structural rascism" is spouting typical talking points from places like VOX which misrepresent facts.
> They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans.
This is the type of misrepresentation which I am talking about. If we are really going by the "13% of population is black" logic, then despite being 13% population, in 2016 blacks committed 53% of murders, 54% robberies, 43% weapons offences, 38% of all violent crimes. How about we take it a step further because only 6% of the 13% is males - so by your logic, we would conclude that 6% of the population is committing 53% of the murders. Is that logic good? Because if it is, then that logic can be used by real racists to validate their logic. Stats:
So should the demographic committing 53% of murders not get expected to get shot? Are people now reporting the wrong race on who murdered someone? Should cops simply not shoot and get shot instead when the other person is armed or attacks them? Should Jacob Blake or Ricardo Munoz have not been shot when both were about to attack the cops with a knife?
And before you start pulling out the "systemic racism" and "stats are lies" card, this isn't even about racism as shown here that whites are arrested 71.0% for "Drug abuse violations" vs 26.7% for blacks, whites commit more rapes at 67.6% vs 29.1% for blacks:
So if this really was about numbers lying because of some bias, why won't they also lie about whites committing significantly more rapes and drugs? Obviously murder is a much worse crime than rape or drug and therefore more shootings for that demographic.
Also fun fact, Hispanics and then black officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect as compared to a white officer.
Definition of OIS (Officer involved shooting) is on page 17
Definition of TPFs (threat perception failures) is on page 30
TPF of white officer against black suspect is 6.8
TPF of black officer against black suspect is 11.4
TPF of hispanic officer against black suspect is 16.7
Aka Hispanics and then black officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect. The claim that white officers are more likely to kill black suspects is complete bullshit. White cops are the least likely to kill unarmed blacks. (Stats for asian cops isn't available as it's negligible.)
So is now your "structural racism" is coming from hispanic and black officers towards their own race?
As I have stated before, this is not about race - I am simply stating them because that's usually what talking points care about. It's about fatherlessness pandemic and socio-economic conditions in mostly democrat run cities for decades which have made the communities dependant on welfare and not improved their lives. We can complain about police brutality all we want but until we fix the root cause of the problem, nothing will change. When you have over 50 people shooting each other in Chicago over a weekend, you probably shouldn't be complaining about police brutality.
One more thing - to get rid of bad cops - we should be doing exact opposite of what democrat policies encourage. Aka we should maybe look at removing police unions which are the reason bad cops stay protected. Same with teacher unions preventing bad cops from getting fired.
I also don't know why you have spelled American as "amerikans" several times through out your comment.
One think you are correct on is the financial institutions and establishment getting away with corruption. But then you conflate it with structural racism and that's where you are wrong. You just have to be part of the establishment to get away with crimes. You can be white or black but as long as you are part of the establishment, you get away with it. You can be Hunter Biden or Bush or Rick Snyder or Maxine Waters or corrupt mayors of Chicago, Baltimore etc. Being part of establishment, regardless of skin color makes you immune.
If there really was "structural racism", then Asians, Indians and Nigerians immigrants wouldn't be the most successful races and least shot by cops. They don't get shot at much because they don't resist arrest and that's because of a strong nuclear family structure where they are taught not to resist arrest as the father is present in the house. Unless you think the melanin in American blacks is somehow different from Nigerians or Indians or something?
Honestly, the reason why I know these stats is because I myself used to be a default liberal until 4-5 years ago and used to believe in all the lies. Then certain things happened which made me research things myself and now I am more of a black-pilled liberal.
I would recommend this video of Larry Elder vs Dave Rubin where you can precisely see the moment Larry red pills Dave:
"It's about fatherlessness pandemic and socio-economic conditions in mostly democrat run cities for decades which have made the communities dependant on welfare and not improved their lives."
Many of us in the reality-based community call this part of The Quadruple Whammy:
1. Welfare incentivizes out-of-wedlock births and disincentivizes employment. The result is that some 70% of blacks are raised by single mothers.[1]
2. Government schools generally, but particularly in the inner cities, are an unmitigated disaster. Among high school seniors, only 20% are proficient in geography, 22% in science, 24% is math, 37% in reading, and an astonishing 12% in U.S. history.[2] Thus most black young adults have little or know knowledge or skills to offer employers.
3. Minimum wages effectively price the victims of Whammies 1 and 2 out of the job market as they cannot produce enough value to justify the wage, thus preventing young people from getting that crucial first job.
4. The War on Drugs™, which has resulted in the caging of millions of blacks, with black men having high incarceration rates[3] and suffering selective arrest and prosecution.
All of these policies were created by Democrats. The combination has almost destroyed the black community, creating a vast underclass which not-so-coincidentally will consistently vote Democrat to keep the benefits gravy train rolling.
If you are looking for systemic racism in the U.S., this is as close as it gets.
From chattel slavery to Jim Crow and the KKK, the Democrats have always been the party of racism. Their current hysterical obsession with racism is utter projection.
They traded the antebellum plantation for a modern welfare state. The turning point came when President Johnson flipped to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which had been filibustered by Strom Thurmond, Democrat senator from NC. When asked about it, LBJ said:
"I’ll have them n****rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." [5]
It is difficult to imagine a more concise and accurate description of Democratic domestic policy.
[5] Lyndon B. Johnson, speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One, as described in Ronald Kessler's book, "Inside the White House."
Probably true. I no longer care about labels. I embrace them. This is why republican politicians absolutely suck because they run at the very sight of someone calling them a mean word - and this is why Trump exploited this weakness and won the nominee.
“outdated data which relies on under-counting since many police/sheriff jurisdictions do not inform FBI of fatal shootings, rather than the more accurate data which sleazy WaPo know uses?“
Did you miss that part? Just curious. Cause if you’re going to use numbers given to us by the very police we are getting killed by, lied to and about, and who have been sweeping shit under the rug for generations since they were originally slave hunters.... then it’s kind of pointless. There’s even national guns registries for weapons used in murder that to this day many police departments don’t participate in. There’s no excuse other than to hide truths; maybe about where those weapons come from, and where they go back out to till someone else dies.
Just saying... I wouldn’t trust their numbers. They’re the ones on trial for being dishonest and violent, remember?!
Daniela, where did you get the idea that police “under-count” fatal shootings? After Fox News drew attention to their database as definitive evidence for the extremely low rate of unjustified police shootings of blacks, the Post “reanalyzed” their data and came up with another few events. The bottom line is that a black person not involved in a crime and not physically attacking a policeman is about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as to be killed by a police officer. I could lecture you for DAYS about “Social Justice Statistics.”
I addressed this clearly in my comment when I stated:
"this isn't even about racism as shown here that whites are arrested 71.0% for "Drug abuse violations" vs 26.7% for blacks, whites commit more rapes at 67.6% vs 29.1% for blacks:
So if this really was about numbers lying because of some bias, why won't they also lie about whites committing significantly more rapes and drugs? Obviously murder is a much worse crime than rape or drug and therefore more shootings for that demographic."
If the intention of the police was really to somehow make whites look better than blacks, won't they do it for rapes, drugs etc too? Are people simply reporting the wrong race when they see a murder?
It is fairly obvious the numbers are mostly reliable because these numbers have had the same trend under both democrat and republican Department of Justices. Also it's fairly obvious that the primary reason people don't want to go to places like Chicago, Baltimore etc is because they don't want to get shot. Chicago literally has a dedicated website for shootings each day:
And Chicago, Baltimore etc is run by democrats for decades, has black mayor, black police Superintendent etc. Are they all lying about their own race? There has to be a limit to the cognitive dissonance.
Blacks are 4 times as likely to commit murder and serious assault than other racial/ethnic groups. Not surprising, even accepting your numbers, if they are shot at double the rate of whites. (BTW, does not even consider the disparate black v. white rate of resisting arrest).
Your argument reminds me of the complaints that NJ state troopers were disproportionately pulling over black drivers on the Turnpike. Until cameras with radar were set up on overpasses and showed that black drivers disproportionately exceeded the speed limit.
Over 95% of those shot by cops are men! Even female cops mostly shoot men! Men only make up 50% of the population! Therefore police is blatantly sexist and we must start bias training! - VOX logic.
Men are entirely more violent and risky than women. Yes, we’ve got some bad bitches on our side too. But y’all take the cake and it isn’t even worth talking about till you all start to see.
One more thing. Replying because Substack doesn't allow edits-
26 unarmed whites were killed while 12 unarmed blacks were killed in 2019. Saying X were killed out of Y population is irrelevant when they are either armed or attack the cop.
If using left leaning WaPo's own data isn't enough to convince you about your own narrative, then I don't know what can.
Law enforcement focuses on those demographics participating in crime. They don't care what percentage of the population a particular demographic is. The TRUTH is that about 1000 people are killed by cops every year. Most during an exchange of gunfire. Of the few dozen unarmed persons killed, most were attacking the officer and he was in fear of losing his firearm (after getting his @ss kicked). In a country of 350M people, this is statistically zero. The anti-cop trope is leftist agitation. Mathematics, not racism, dictates that the most justifiable shootings, accidental shootings, unjustifiable shootings and scared sh!tless shootings will always disproportionately effect the most violent and criminal demographic in society.
"Whichever way anyone tries to cut it Black amerikans are more likely to be shot by police than hispanics and far more likely to be killed by police than white amerikans."
Nope, sorry........ you stopped churning data when it didn't suit you, when you factor in the 'engagements' between the races and Police you'll find whites are actually shot more often. I know, bummer right?
You’re failing to account for police interactions and crime rates within certain demographics. The vast majority, and it’s not even close, of police interactions regardless of demographic aren’t violent. Also, while past structural racism is likely a causal factor it does not account for everything within this context. I encourage you to read Thomas Sowell’s lengthy dissection of such issues in his books. “Discrimination and Disparities” along with with “White Liberals and Black Rednecks.”
Your “analysis” is completely wrong. CNNisFakeNews debunks it quite capably. Murder is a crime that nearly always gets reported, and blacks, per capita, commit murder many times more than other groups. Many of the exceedingly rare police shootings are by nonwhite cops. And, to restate a well known fact, police get many times more calls for help from predominantly black areas.
Mostly true...obviously the elite behind things are afraid of a black population with hope, energy, and inspiration. But don't assume it's entirely about race...it's about keeping anybody down who is inspiring dignity and hope to underclasses. That's why Jesus had to go and is still a threat.
I'm expecting some scientific archeological "evidence" pushing fer porn about something or other...aliens....and scientific "evidence" disproving ANYTHING that supports hope and dignity for human life.
Your observation that it's not about race is so true. I would just note that a great deal of violent crime comes from cities that have had minority majority city councils, and elected black mayors, and district attorneys and have had black police chiefs appointed. And remember if the evidence you see encouraging fear is reported in the media, it's probably not true. My guess is that next will be imminent disaster this year for sure due to climate change global warming.
Yes, because there are so many examples of majority black countries around the world that are great successes (high standard of living, lack of crime, freedom of speech and religion, etc.). If only elites in America would stop suppressing hope, energy, and inspiration among the black population.
Wow, talk about a racist post?! Worst I've seen under a Greenwald article! And you paid to post here? Glenn should give you your money back and ask you go go packing.
This Capitol Police officer did not show the restraint that the police showed all summer in Portland while they were being assaulted and pelted with projectiles.
How many "mostly peaceful protesters" throwing frozen bottles or setting patrol cars on fire were shot by police last summer? The message received loud and clear is that it is ok to shoot an unarmed right wing wacko but it is not ok to shoot a left wing wacko.
As LEO I feel like I can comment with the knowledge and training I have had for over 25 years. Unarmed is unarmed. There were other ways to stop the "threat." I am not going to list them because they are numerous. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. I try to never put myself in the shoes of another LEO on how they perceived the threat.. Deadly etc. What was going on at the Capitol was chaos for LEO.. That officer had no way of knowing that if Babbitt made entry did she have a deadly weapon? (It is worth noting that the rest of the responding officers used restraint as you stated.) Many of the rioters had adapted many common items into deadly weapons.. blunt force trauma etc.. In my mind it was justified.. but then comes the question.. Can I or should I? I was horrified at the "peaceful protests" of BLM over the summer. I condemned the violence and believed that deadly force was justified but not used in many confrontations so I will not adjust my condemnation just because the rioters were Trump supporters.
As for Sicknick.. I 100% believe his strokes were brought on by responding to the riots. The stress would have exacerbated what could have been a prior condition. It is no different than George Floyd's prior medical condition being the reason Chauvin's actions brought on respiratory failure. No different than a person dying from cardiac arrest after a gunshot that would have been survivable in a healthy person. The list goes on.
As for the Capitol "riot's" themselves, the lying media took a condemnable situation and turned it into Nazi's committing genocide. They pushed a narrative that was so over the top it was ALMOST laughable. I sat and watched as many of those rioters WALKED through the building and stayed inside the line ropes! I fully support the prosecution of those that committed violence but in the grand scheme of things this riot was child's play compared to the destruction of the summer BLM "peaceful protests."
Bottom line is Sicknick would be alive if not for the actions of the rioters. Had he not been pushed to his physical limit responding to the riots he "might" have been able to realize his symptoms were not just from stress and hours of physical confrontation, but from a deadly medical condition, and sought treatment. Should've, Would've Could've.
Glenn you are spot on regarding the lying media and I love your articles. The lying media convoluted the death of Sicknick giving the impression he died from a violent, weaponized, physical attack.. The reality is he most likely died from the stress of his response, however it is not nearly as shocking as a violent mob of LEO murdering Trump supporters to vilify half of this country.
You have no evidence whatsoever to make inferences about the cause of Sicknick’s death. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? They teach you in any first year critical thinking class that such an inference is faulty. Tens of thousands of people die of natural causes every day. Many of them die young, and many of them, no doubt, experienced some stressor on the day they died. But so did millions of people who didn’t die!
You know how I know this is nothing more than political affiliation of Babbitt? Because we don't even know the name of the cop, nor any body cam footage etc. Everything else is an excuse.
Must be great to be able to foretell the future. So, according to your crystal ball, Sicknick would be alive if not for the actions of the rioters. Really? Are you a cardiologist? Did you examine Sicknick Jan 5 and tell him, you will have a stroke and die tomorrow if you confront Trump supporters, but if you stay home you will live to be 85?
Glenn, have you watched any of the footage of the riots the nights after Floyd's death? I encourage you to go through all of Regg Life's (aka Regg Inkognedo) footage. I'd wager less than 0.01% of the nation has seen it. I wonder what someone of your stature would think of such footage.
Don't you know burning down innocent people businesses is not as bad as having a few hippies walk into the people's chambers - the capitol building - to ask for an investigation into the elections and some breaking a few glasses and putting their feet on Pelosi's desk? Politicians > innocent businesses.
The point is to convey the lack of trust in Glenn's use of the word irony. It's a bit apples and oranges to compare 1/6 to the summer social justice protests. Don't cha think. The summer protests were about many things but mostly that cops shouldn't sneak into your house at night and use deadly force. Or kill someone when they're already handcuffed. George wouldn't have gotten too far on foot in my opinion. And he truly wasn't a threat. If he was running my way I would simply make the decision to step aside or attempt to trip. The looting that happened was stupid but not ironic either. 1/6 was a bunch of delusional yahoos that were trying to stop the election certification because a few people told them that there was an evil plan afoot. Now if the yahoos were to put on a peaceful protest because of the shooting of an unarmed yahoo and the police killed a few of them, now you got something to get your hackles up. I find it deeply troubling when people try to equate these two. History is not going to have a hard time with this one.
Because that's what it is. Spin. The 2020 riots and protests caused far more violence, far more property destruction to the tune of billions, were heavily stoked and promoted by media forces, and deeply divided people. The crime and murder rates in cities affected by the riots/protests also exploded afterwards. Why people like you want to pretend it's NBD while judging and shaming the capitol protest and holding it to a different standard is bizarre to me.
Is it the good old "one rule for my side and another rule for your side" that has plagued people since humans could first argue with each other? I'm aware of hypocrisies, but at least I acknowledge them.
Compared to the riots last summer, the Capitol riots were relatively peaceful. Not excusable, but innocent people weren’t killed ( except Ashli) federal buildings weren’t set on fire, average citizens didn’t have their businesses burned to the ground. Systemic police racism is not supported by statistics, Which is why you don’t ever hear BLM discussing data, only showing videos of individual instances.
She was unarmed, that's a fact. A sentence not judging the fact would not use the term "despite". Despite means "notwithstanding the adverse effects of" in that context, implying that she should not have been shot because she was unarmed.
I can't very well write that a person is a human being "despite" their race or sexuality, because it while both their humanity and the character trait are facts, the implication is that the second fact undermines their humanity.
Those people breaking into that area were likely bent on doing something extreme and violent. They were all hopped up and brainwashed and the adrenaline was through the roof. It was a recipe for disaster.
There were half a dozen police officers 6 feet away behind Babbitt, they did nothing to stop her. BTW normally the officer that pulled the trigger is named, why is this so different?
If this is true, why were they not carrying firearms? Your assertion seems ridiculous on even casual inspection. They did little damage and were quite nonviolent compared to, say, a BLM demonstration.
This rationale for the violence is absurd on two fronts:
1) 93% isn't a very high rate of being peaceful. That means that there is about a 7% chance of each protest devolving into violence and destruction. In fact, the protests had a similar chance of getting violent as those over 80 have of dying of Covid (8%... all other age groups are FAR lower). Covid is seen as having a high enough level of risk that we needed to lock down every economy, yet the same amount of risk of violence during the BLM protests is seen as negligible.
2) Using this logic, you can say that the overwhelming number of Trump rallies were peaceful because there were millions of them and only a few involved violence. Yet this isn't the case. Trump supporters are being painted as extremely dangerous while people like you claim that BLM protests weren't at all because they only had a 7% of violence... and that's just in 2020! They have been behind numerous other riots since BLM started.
1. She was surrounded by other security on her side and neither of them reacted to her like this.
2. The door was still closed and the glass even though had breaks was not broken and nor could she climb through once the glass was gone (It wasn't).
3. No warnings were given to her - the cop legit just randomly decided to shoot.
4. The cops let the crowd into the building. There's several videos of the cops saying "I don't agree with it but can respect it" while letting the people into capitol.
5. We still don't even know the name of the cop who shot her. If you can't see how this is not politically biased, then you are intentionally being blind.
6. Where were you during the anti-kavanaugh protests storming the capitol, senate and SCOTUS actively encouraged by Democrats? Or entire last year of riots and burning down of court houses?
Well spoken. The cops that were behind and around her turn to leave right before the shots ring out, check it out. Another point every discussion ends up about race. I and many people I know are fed up with it.
Most of us get along at work at play in church in cities in country sides. When politics became the super bowl and Replaced sports along with religion and infused race into the American consciousness is when this slide into race addiction started. It’s every where. It as if the Madison ave marketing gurus just discovered hey there are black people. Asian hate crime hits the news awe man we better bring Asians into every spoke of advertising. Are there pockets of racist idiots, absolutely, is it rampant? It may be now thanks to the evolution of politics as the WWF or MMA of daily entertainment with a constant feeding frenzy of social media self proclaimed “journalists” in the Twitterdome and hundreds of other platforms springing up around the globe. Let us not forget the thousands of “researchers” googalizing us with “facts“ of alien conspiracies and baby eaters, diluting the truth with one grain of salt in a tub of dirty bath water. To quote a famous philosopher “can’t we all just get along”
"you doeth protest too much" is usually used when someone's hiding something and considering my comment has nothing to do with hiding facts (quite the opposite), that statement doesn't make much sense.
> And I understand why the officials refused to publish the name of the officer.
And this is why you are blind to the double standards and hypocrisy of the current political climate. If she was a black Biden supporter, buildings would have been burnt. If she was black Trump supporter or white Trump supporter in this case, she got gunned down and nobody from the "defund the police" crowd cares.
Considering you spout hysterical MSNPC propaganda about "burning down of the Reichstag" when that's literally what the Democrats encouraged all year last year, you are simply projecting and not arguing in good faith. Even mentioning anything to do with Germany makes me know you know nothing more than MSNPC talking points.
> The Kavanaugh protests were a long and extended exercise in hysterical political theatre.
Oh yea? Destroying an innocent man's life is politics? Pray to god you or some male family member of yours doesn't get their lives ruined by 36 year old false gang rape charges. Democrats literally created the very monster by encouraging protestors to storm the capitol, SCOTUS and Senate chambers 2 years ago. Kamala was literally bailing out the rioters from last year. They literally created the very monster.
But it's not worth arguing over as clearly we aren't living in applying consistent standards.
We had exactly a Reichstag Fire incident on Jan. 6th. Completely analogous. A trumped up excuse for unleashing a war on the political opposition. Thankfully the radical leftists haven't yet adopted the same level of ferocity...but I'm afraid it's coming.
Not sure how you can compare the two either as an act or as an outcome. One was a demonstration that got out of control, the other was arson. Reichstag arson was committed at night, by one or a few persons (that's unclear based on evidence). It wasn't poorly protected by police some of whom offered mob entry into the building, others preventing entry. One was severely damaged (Reichstag).
Reichstag ended in curtailment of civil liberties and WW2. Jan 6 led to the inauguration of President Biden, despite a number of legal challenges.
Some historians argue it was a false flag op by the Nazis, not a comintern plot. Is that what you're referring to? That the Jan 6 was a false flag op? The day after the fire, Hitler suspended most civil liberties. Very different situation and outcomes from my POV. Those rights were not reinstated until after the Nazis were toppled. If anything, the opposing party has pushed hard to reduce civil liberties. All depends on your political POV, I suppose. Have a nice day.
Well justified in your country. If this was a civilized country like say Scotland where I live, shooting an unarmed person in the neck or wherever who was storming the Parliament would be considered unjustified and murderous, but hey ho, we live where we live.
Lol, you've watched one movie well done, just goes to show your intellect. You live in an oligarchy on steroids, every construct of your Government and media is owned by billionaires, and sadly you're a product of this society where obviously the murderous, criminal invasion of Vietnam has clouded any judgement of what a fair and just society should look like.
Ashli Babbitt was killed and, there is a killer walking around because Nancy has his back plain and simple. This country will not survive by having no justice for all.
When you have to keep bringing up "I'm a Vietnam veteran" in every single comment, it's clear that you are not making a point of substance but appealing to authority. And if we are really doing that, then Babbitt was also an airforce veteran, served two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq before later deployments with the National Guard to Kuwait and Qatar. She got killed by the very politicans who send kids to foreign lands but don't want to hear anything from their own constituents about election issues and shoot their constituents while hiding under a desk.
> rioters and the looters
The lack of self awareness and reflection from Democrats did and encouraged for past 2 years - from anti kavanaugh protests to riots all year last year (and still ongoing), tells me you are full of shit and don't actually care about any "miscarriage of justice." Admit it - you enjoy political violence and exploiting legal system against your political opponents. You love it.
Thank you for your service. I do know violence and, actions have consequences. What I see is a bunch of old war criminals in power choosing who to prosecute which eventually will open the door for a real white supremacy uprising or a civil war. Unfortunately, the judicial branch is no longer the pillar of our Republic but an arm of the Democratic Party.
Well, thank them for their service for me. There are many stories from Vietnam. Why don't you lighten up on the censorship, and let people tell theirs?
"Yes, she was unarmed. But the officer didn't know that fact." How does this support justification to use deadly force. There may be arguments for justification in this case, but this fact actually contra indicates justification.
Well justified in your country. If this was a civilized country like say Scotland where I live, shooting an unarmed person in the neck or wherever who was storming the Parliament would be considered unjustified and murderous, but hey ho, we live where we live.
I actually don't fault the Capitol officer who shot her. People don't realize what it is like to be in terror as a situation goes south. But this understanding isn't given to police who more often than not in a questionable shooting were just scared out of their mind.
So, Nancy, when BLM and/or antifa rioters surge towards police officers you won't have any problem with them shooting and killing the rioters, correct?
The Capitol is just another federal building, like the many set on fire by AntiFA and BLM protestors. $2B in damage from those rioters, and what's the tally from the Capitol riot? Less than $50k? What about all the "handmaids" who barged into Senate Chambers and shut down the Kavanaugh hearings? Should they have all been executed?
The Kavanaugh hearings are a perfect comparison: Partisans stormed the Capitol building in order to prevent Congress from conducting its lawful business. I fail to see how validating the Electoral College tally is somehow more sacred than voting on a Supreme Court nominee.
That most of the Kavanaugh invaders either had their charges dismissed, or had minimal jail time, should be the measure of the Trump invaders.
Laws and Rules don't apply to establishment cronies. The kavanaugh protestors stormed the capitol, senate chambers and was actively encouraged by Democrats.
And why would we believe that number? I don’t know, but I do consider the fact that Biden literally kicked off his campaign by repeating the Very Fine People hoax, which is the most easily disproven political lie of all time. So I’m guessing the actual damages were a fraction of that.
Nancy, they broke a few windows and smashed a few doors. No fires, no extensive graffiti, no gunfire. 30 million probably included all the ancillary expenses. The actual damage done by the rioters was probably 100-300 thousand. The massive overreaction by the government cost millions, all wasted. Minneapolis alone has had more than a billion in property losses and lost income.
I absolutely love how these establishment cronies value the broken windows of politicians more than burnt down businesses of innocent people (often serving minority communities too).
The $30M wasn't broken down much in the articles I saw. But it did include the extraordinary security measures taken since Jan 6, including the fencing surrounding the Capitol
Notably, if Speaker Pelosi had accepted President Trump's offer to post National Guard troops around the Capitol on January 6, none of the damage would have happened.
Guarding the Capitol and protecting members of Congress gives them a special kind of license to kill people who aren't actually threatening anyone's life?
No, there was a difference in cops being out in force for peaceful protests. The Capitol cops were guarding members of Congress. Some of the rioters who breached the Capitol were chanting Hang Pence, weren't they? Looking for Spkr Pelosi, no?
The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped $30 million and will keep rising, Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton told lawmakers on Wednesday.
As first reported by NPR, J. Brett Blanton, the current Architect of the Capitol, told members of the House Appropriations Committee last week that repair and restoration costs have reached $30 million and will likely soar higher if related security measures are extended beyond the end of this month. This includes maintaining a contentious and meant-to-be-temporary perimeter fence around the Capitol building.
The biggest problem I have with this is that you act as if defending the capitol and our esteemed Congress people is more important that defending someone's business or home or a police station or a federal building in Portland, etc.. With your logic, since they were defending such special people and special place, (and because the victim was white and conservative - which is most likely the real issue here), they were justified in their shooting of someone who wasn't carrying a firearm. I don't think they were justified. And I also don't think any police officer who shoots an unarmed person is justified, but in all those cases the police offer should have due process. That's our laws.
The differences in recent cases are stark. The Daunte Wright shooting is a perfect example. Here's a guy that was pulled over because he had a warrant for an armed robbery charge. Here's a guy that you, as a police officer would rightfully think could be extremely dangerous. He resists arrest and tries to run away. You don't know if he's ducking into his car to pull a gun or drive away. Officer pulls gun and shoots and obviously, based on her words at the time, made a mistake. Now, she maybe rightfully so, will get convicted of something, but she's due due process. If you listened to the mob of reporters grilling the sheriff they 1) didn't want him to call a riot a riot, and 2) they openly refuted him when he tried to say the officer should be afforded due process.
In the Ashli Babbitt case, no charges are even being brought against the officer that shot her. Shouldn't we at least be doing that? Well, no. Why? Because the victim was white and the insurrectionists deserved all they got. Let's not worry that she was unarmed. She wasn't supposed to be there was she. She supported the wrong person, didn't she. She was threatening important people, not some veteran cop of 25 years.
The treatment the Wright case versus the Babbitt case couldn't be more evidence of the problems in our country. It's ok to kill a white person who's unarmed. It's ok to kill a Trump supporter. It's ok to kill anyone who dares question the legitimacy of the election. In fact, if that happens, we won't even bother investigating the issue, let alone charging someone.
But if a black, accused armed robber, resists arrest, well, the white cop that shot him is immediately tried and convicted in the press.
Just look at Maxine Waters talking about the Chauvin trial. Publicly saying he should be convicted of first degree murder and if he isn't, then let the real rioting (oh sorry, protesting) begin. Again, what happened to due process? What happened to our politicians, whom you hold in such high regard, respecting our laws and processes?
This is all because, for some reason, liberals and the media want a race war. Well, guess what, they're going to get one once the Chauvin result is announced - it won't matter if he's convicted to the fullest extent, or something else, there will be mass rioting and that will be condoned by the left because it fits the narrative that white people owe black people for the sins of the past, and anything done in the name of that is a-ok. And God help you if you question that.
The contrast between Charges in Daunte Wright Shooting, but not Ashli Babbitt (not even knowing the name of the cop who shot her) is a pure example of the two tiered justice system.
No denying Babbitt was climbing through a broken window in a capitol lobby.
The questions for any law enforcement officer in such a situation is, is his or someone else's life threatened, and is the threat imminent?
Nancy, it's child's play for anyone to lay down a stream of fog and spin some kind of tale about how Babbitt's action's constituted an imminent threat. I'm sure if challenged, you have the ability to make up some kind of far-fetched hypothetical.
Imagine instead of Ashley Babbitt, it was your daughter playing a prank with some of her friends, climbing through a broken window. If a cop shot her while she presented no obvious threat, would you think the officer was justified?
Me, I just don't see a real threat, imminent or otherwise.
Is that what you see in the video? A "daughter playing a prank with some of her friends, climbing through a broken window" presenting "no obvious threat"? While in order to claim the actions do constitute an imminent threat would require "some kind of far-fetched hypothetical"?
It surely seemed imminent. She was climbing through the broken hole. Feet off the ground. The intent was to get through the barriers. Wasn't Jim McGovern there a moment ago? Wish she had climbed down, instead.
Nancy, again, everything you've said is correct. "...climbing through a broken hole... feet off the ground... intent was to get through the barriers..."
Every one of those elements is present whenever there's a riot and a bunch of people break into a Nike store or a Walmart for the five-finger discount.
Nobody is ever shot for doing the things you listed. b/c, though they're breaking the law, they are not threatening other people's life or safety.
As best as I can make out from everything you've written, you think a) b/c they were chanting about hanging Pence, and b) b/c they were guarding the Capitol, that makes it OK to shoot to kill.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I saw the video several times. Pretty horrifying. There were armed officers standing by...watching. I'd be interested in hearing why they stood back while one officer decided to fire his weapon out of fear. Into her neck.
At this point its so obvious you are a DNC shill its pathetic. You have responded to every comment in this thread with the same DNC party line horseshit.
Yes, we all wish to avoid tragedies like Ms. Babbitt's, so we generally agree she should have "stood down," not climbed through. But if you are going to mention McGovern (did he change his name?), then why not the original Andrew Jackson Populists? Were they justified (for States rights, against Federal Bankin)?
I agree that "being unarmed" does not mean he could not have been in fear of bodily harm. That said - I PROMISE YOU, if I use a firearm in a situation where I am clearly in fear of great bodily harm . . . my local prosecutor would arrest and charge me, and some piece of shit ambulance chasing lawyer would file a wrongful death suit before I made bail.
I have an insurance policy (not a metaphor) for this exact situation. I consider it money well spent. If you justifiably use a firearm, odds are that the process will be the punishment and it will be severe.
In numerous cases in Canada, this is exactly what happened. Criminals with a long history of violence break into your home, you shoot them, and get charged with excessive violence.
Y'all do realize that deadly force is only justified under law in response to the treat of deadly force or the threat of great bodily injury? Do you really want the police to shoot people outside those circumstances? There cant be one rule for someone you disfavor, and another for those you favor, for cryin' out loud.
So you’re saying the only way for a team of cops to stop a fat middle aged woman squeezing through a window opening is a bullet in the brain? Seriously?
Did you see the full video of this? There are cops behind her walking down the steps and away from the area...not but a few feet away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In_3TjMKRNc
Watch this video...the whole thing was a FF. It will never be reported but it was set up to confiscate Congress’ laptops. Truth will eventually come out.
Yes she was trespassing and part of a group breaking into the Capitol. But it looked like all she was doing was using her small frame to get through a smashed out door panel. She was shot before she made it. Other demonstrators actually got into the building or were pulled in and neutralized without being killed. I consider her death a tragedy and an unnecessary overuse of force. What also bothered me was the lack of apparent concern on the part of other demonstrators when she collapsed. Perhaps I didn’t see that footage but what I saw did not show anyone caring about her after her usefulness in getting through that door panel didn’t work out.
What happened to the peaceful protesting Nancy? And what were you saying when Democrats not just stormed the capitol and senate during anti-kavanaugh protests, they were actively encouraged by Pelosi's and AOC etc.
There were both demonstrators and insurrectionists. Unlike the apologists for insurrection, those who cowardly pretend that they were doing nothing wrong when they know that they were trying to “stop the steal”, the insurrectionists themselves knew exactly what they were doing. What concerns me is what would have happened had the intention been to use weapons to achieve the objective of stopping the electoral process. There would have been a massacre. Those of you apologizing for this should be aware of what could happen the next time and stop minimizing this event. 9/11
It’s what being on the left is all about now, they can’t function without hypocrisy. That they do it without the slightest hint of irony on their part is the amazing part.
Often arguing with trolls isn't done to convince and change the mind of troll (if she really is a troll). It's done to convince the audience reading the comments / watching the debate that why my argument is worth more than the troll's. Gotta remember - there are still a lot of oblivious people reading comments and you might be able to change their minds.
Without warning? He didn’t allow her to put up her hands or back away or to even know he was there. You think that is the correct procedure. When someone tries to enter a courthouse or any government property without permission, you think the cops have a mandate to just start shooting without trying to verbally warn anyone and give them a chance to correct their actions? Really? Every cop has that right?
She and the group were accompanied by 2 security officers in the stairwell at the time she was shot. The video is widely available, no need to remember.
The heck's wrong with "stop or I'll shoot" like normal cops do? She didn't know the cop was lurking in the recess to the left behind the door. "Well, she shouldn't have been there in there in the first place!" True, but by that logic scores of federal building rioters and looters last summer should have all been shot by by the guards. Murder, not self-defense, is what this was. It's fine when woke people do it yet murder for everybody else. So tired of the double standards!
Me thinks we have mentally ill people masquerading as journalists. There is no way a normally functioning human could behave in the way. This is the final straw for me. I am cancelling cable so I don't fund this shit.
So when I share Greenwald’s columns with leftist friends and family they don’t respond to the substance they just say something to the effect that they don’t understand what has happened to him. As if reporting the facts as he sees them is eq uivalent to having fallen victim to a disease. There really is nothing to say to these people. I disagree with Some of Greenwald’s positions but I am eternally grateful that he is willing to look carefully at these e vents and report the facts. That is what real journalists do!
Having mentioned Glenn’s reporting to a liberal acquaintance from college, I was given a retort of “Greenwald carries water for Trump and makes it harder to get rid of him.”
The truth doesn’t matter. We’ve become truly postmodern and power is the only metric left because there is no possibility of agreement on anything objective anymore.
Lots of fascists on the left - I mean, how often do we now hear that "free speech" is just another right-wing excuse?
I think now that authoritarianism is the core of liberalism.
Authoritarianism is the result of liberalism taken to the extreme.
Thank you for that clarification. It works on both the extreme right and left, though. Rigid doctrinaires are the bane of democracy.
Ding, ding, ding!
The First Amendment carries water for Trump.
The Truth is what the Ministry says it is.
I've had a similar experience with liberal relatives.
I ask probing questions about their beliefs, intended to challenge their thinking.
One of them, who always starts the discussion through an email with a link to an article from the NYT or some such, just ignores the questions.
The other, a niece who graduated from William and Mary, flat-out says she doesn't want to answer those kinds of questions.
They've chosen a team, for whatever reason. It's like being a Pittsburg Steelers Fan, or something, but way worse. Nothing, nothing you can ask them is going the challenge their belief their team is the greatest.
I think this has been true for a while, and during the Trump years this type of political polarization has become much more so. I find that those who identify as liberals are often extremely dogmatic in their beliefs and are closed off to any opposing points of view, and often become angry should you have a political position different then their own. I consider myself liberal, and always have, but should you see shades of grey in issues those "liberals" will too often go on an attack. Everything to them is black or white.
You've never seen a dogmatic conservative "open to any opposing point of view?" All of us -- Libs and Conservatives -- are being misled on damn near everything pertaining to our government. I don't trust anyone -- certainly nothing coming from the intelligence community (Thank you Glenn G.) I would trust the inate goodness of a friend who is a liberal than I would anyone in government -- Trump's or Bidens.
Yes, of course, but that's a given, and in the past I always experienced liberals as much more open and receptive to different opinions, interested in the truth, however during the Trump years I saw an end to that, more or less, and now the positions of too many liberals is quite dogmatic, and not only that they express utter contempt for those whose perspective on things are somewhat different. No longer are there shades of grey in their world. Of course I am not referring to all liberals, but too many of them can be defined that way in 2021.
When the actual war criminals from Republican Party like Bush, Liz Cheney, Rick Snyder etc join and endorse the author of the crime bill Biden, then that party is no longer abiding to the dictionary definition of a liberal which is "Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise."
My friends from high school who were "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" Republicans in the '80's are mostly Democrats now. I left the Democrats about the same time Warren left the Republicans to become a Democrat. Both parties are too conservative for me. I wonder how many other liberals of my generation left the Democrats and became independents or other, and how many Republicans became Democrats?
Well, it's during that time and before that the democrats really shifted toward the right, and by the time Clinton was through with the party it was no longer a party of the working class, or liberal in any way shape or form. I stuck it out and voted for Obama only to find out he was no progressive. I didn't vote for Trump, but definitely not for Clinton. In these last four years I've seen rather normal people become unhinged at the mere mention of Trump, and a black and white world evolve. I think the democrats more then anyone helped to create that divide. I was just reading that Chelsea Clinton want's Tucker Carlson removed from Facebook, but I didn't finish the article, but what the hell?
True to human nature, I was a Dem when young at heart, and a Conservative when I grew a brain. I left the the Dems when they started blaming the soldiers for Vietnam (me a returning babykiller among them) and when in 1974 they decided to have the SCOTUS choose a national infanticide shield law (Roe) instead of letting the states deal with the issue. I know that issue is personal to everyone. I have daughters and a wife. But my argument has always been process, not policy. I do not want SCOTUS as an alternative legislature deciding issues that cannot make it through the legislative process on their own merit.
It is like trying to de-bunk a religion. The adherents become very angry and in some cases violent. No remorse for any persons they attack or injure because like any ideologue a liberal never sees others as individuals but as part of some "group." That group is either with them or against them and is always treated as an enemy who must be destroyed for them to prosper and survive. Best to stay far away since these ideologues are a bit dangerous and cannot be reasoned with.
I was watching Debbie Wasserman-Shultz spew incredible hatred about Trump, and how he brought Naziism to America. She was full of rage, and spitting hate, almost unbelievable. Alright, she's crazy and does illegal things, and not to be trusted, but what I couldn't believe was to hear Norm Chomsky a while back saying President Donald Trump’s supporters at his rallies remind him of listening to the crowds at Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies. This is how so the called political left defined the right, and polarized this country. To be a liberal no longer means your open-minded, tolerant, or progressive. It's become very dogmatic in it's beliefs. A cousin referenced Trump supporters as a cultish, uneducated lot who totally lacked any sense of morality, and his mother agreed. I couldn't help myself and responded by saying how do so called liberals sum up some 70 million people in one sentence and define them all as amoral and a cultish lot?
It's because you fall in the 24% of liberals who still have critical thinking.
Only Republicans and some independents seem to be learning as shown by this Gallup poll:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321116/americans-remain-distrustful-mass-media.aspx
Media trust by Democrats is at an all time high of 73-76%. Independents is at 35% and Republicans is at the lowest 10%. Aka most Democrats are buying whatever propaganda media is selling.
And I am not saying this to criticize democrats for political gain, I am saying this because this pendulum has chances of swinging to other side one day and then don't be surprised if everything they are supporting right now comes back to bite them in the ass one day.
That was interesting, Thanks for that link. I think the democrats trust the media more because in the last few years it's fed them what they wanted and demanded to hear which was anti-Trump rhetoric if not all out hate. I was always a registered democrat, but not always a voter, now I'm an independent. I stayed a democrat even knowing they really no longer represented the working class and unions, the people. However their Trump lies and hate turned me off because I came to see them as very authoritarian and willing to do anything even in breech of the constitution to oust him from office.
It's a cult, a partisan nationalistic cult. And there are cultists of both parties. It makes it easier for the ruling class to keep the working class in line. 90% of the media is owned by six corporations. They control the narrative. They fear monger to the left about the conservatives and Russia. They fear monger to the right about transgender folks and communism/socialism/"the left". They keep the working class divided against itself and powerless against oppression.
It's not their fault. They can't help it. The status quo is not a system of thought. It primarily isn't thought at all. It's an internalized pattern of cognition. Those who are tasked with designing the systems of manipulation for controlling the public mind know that.
While it does matter when status quo lies are exposed, or challenging questing questions are asked, as long as the narrative is persistently supported, the cognitive pattern will remain very difficult to challenge on a large enough scale to deactivate it.
That's because liberalism is a religion, not a political ideology steeped in identifying a problem, implementing a solution and improving lives.
I never thought of being liberal as having a religious perspective of the world, but most definitely a willingness to respect or accept behavior, or opinions different from my own, and having a more progressive perspective on things. I don't find that to be the case today as much as it was in the past.
"The case today" aren't liberals but neo-liberals - that's who you're referring to.
Due to their emergence on the scene, I've declined from describing myself as "liberal", though I once did, and now prefer "Progressive" because it's a distinctly different perspective, and one that mostly ignores a lot of the crap and tries to focus on _progress_ for the average citizen and the world writ large.
Art, not sure if you are equating liberal with neo-liberals in your first sentence. I agree that progressive is a good way to describe oneself, but liberal is another way to say progressive. True liberal has taken on a new meaning which today doesn't seem to mean much. However when Obama ran in 2008 everyone defined him as a progressive, and he was seen that way through his 8 years in office. Well I certainly didn't see him that way.
"when Obama ran in 2008 everyone defined him as a progressive,"
Sorry, that's laughably wrong. I remember HOPING he was progressive but saw the proverbial handwriting on the wall by paying close attention to his very specific word choice, such as saying we'd have to "make" him ("make me") take specific actions on one topic or another.
He was in no way a Progressive, more a "centrist Republican" as he later, in his second term, admitted openly on more than one occasion.
"he was seen that way through his 8 years in office."
Only by those who refused to see what was in front of their eyes and somehow missed Obama's own statements about himself.
"Well I certainly didn't see him that way."
THAT, I can surely believe!
As for the meaning of liberal, it has changed in this century's America, FROM the meaning you ascribe to something heinous, and this change in the meaning of the word is accompanied by a seriously well funded propagandistic effort to keep us fighting one another by really moving a whole population of what USED TO BE "left" to a seriously right-wing, authoritarian perspective - the howling protestations to the contrary by local commenters here be damned. The right-wingers who comment here refuse to understand their perceptions of what's left has been manipulated right along with all those former left people - or who are too young to have hadn any real grounding in left and were herded into becoming neo-liberals - who have been transformed into what the left actually loathes, the very antithisis of left-ism. And, that's by design, to both extinguish any real left AND to keep us all fighting one another instead of realizing our common enemy, the ulta-rich, and unifying to defeat them (which we simply must do to save the current biosphere).
Bullseye.
Keep trying, Evil. We will get converts one at a time.
What I find even more disturbing is the level of anger from liberal relatives should you question their position (especially god forbid with facts). I like the Dodgers but I'm not angry to the point of ostracizing you if you support the Yankees. Well, maybe a little.
Ms or Mr. Incarnate.......I just wrote a comment above and your experience is duplicate of mine. Glad to hear I am not alone. Here is part of my comment:
"I have had the same experience with demographically elite progressive friends. I have shown them data contravening what they say and think (on police shootings, especially police shootings) and they ignore them or refuse to acknowledge their existence."
I know your response was to a different post, but I responded to him as well. In terms of the issue you refer to there is only one response and no one is allowed to challenge or question it less one be called a racist. It seems liberals have quickly fallen into line willing to listen to orders dictated by the media, democrats, and the corporate world. This does not serve the interest of the people of this country, black white, or any other color.
The meme of one's eyes bulging and head puffing out like a lionfish is real.
Yuri Bezmenov referred to them as useful idiots.
I always bring this up -- if Greenwald is off your wagon, perhaps you should think harder about the wagon.
If Bush, Liz Cheney and Rick Snyder are on your wagon enduring Biden, you should think harder about the wagon too lol
That's concise; I like it, thanks.
"The dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism." - Glenn Greenwald.
Ad hominem attacks are a sure sign of lack of faith in their own arguments.
They're not "leftists." They're corporatists. You can't be both. Leftists are extremely rare in this country. And corporatism is status quo.
If they claim to be “democratic socialists” I take them at their word. And in today’s world it does appear you can be both. One thing they are not is liberal.
"And in today’s world it does appear you can be both."
Meaning Socialists have a majority? Until they vote to end democracy.
Yep, and thanks for writing that.
If you have to make stuff up to participate in a conversation it's a sign you'd be better off just observing.
He didn't "make stuff up" he asked that you let him guess. But I'll make something up, your non-response means he's probably more or less correct - I'm sure there is a wiggle word or competing definitions affecting the precision of his guess, but he's more or less accurate.
Really? You're haggling over the semantics of "guess" vs "fabricate" in a statement that failed to demonstrate any relevance to what he was replying to? I'm not here to chase other people's red herrings so they can change the subject of the conversation to something they're more comfortable with. If Eric can't demonstrate how his "guess" is relevant to my comment, that has nothing to do with me.
And your doubling down on irrelevance as some verification of it's truth value is as stupid as it sounds (to one who can think in rational terms).
Truly there is a parasitic pathogen that has affected large swathes of formerly intellectual, rational minded people.
Ask what’s wrong with them.
Hear! Hear! I've gotten the same response from my friends who edit or publish newspapers in different markets.
Sad.
It's the lack of remorse and accountability that infuriates me. The last screenshot, of the NYT saying "With a bloody gash in his head ..." which is clearly an outright lie. They will never apologize, never think they did anything wrong.
Remorse and accountability only occurs when you do something by mistake. These aren't mistakes.
The Officer Sicknick story was so inflammatory that it caused me to take leave of my senses. But several hours later, when I calmed down, I reflected on whether the story made sense. It seemed to me that the Capitol insurgents/rioter/protesters (whatever) were not at all the types to bash a police officer's skull. Now several months later, the entire affair has reminded me not to jump to an emotion-driven conclusion based on a media story and quite frankly to distrust the media with every bone in my body. It is truly disgusting how reporters seems to have no qualms about bald-faced lying to the public.
It's a HUGE reminder to "look at your source." These days, their agenda is so ingrained into their DNA, you basically have to question every story the MSM produces. The more damaging the story, the more likely it is a lie.
I felt the same way after the reporting of the Covington kids at the March for Life. Any rational person should have taken pause and waited for more information as it just didn't pass the smell test. There are still media and even members of Congress who are grasping at that false narrative. Same with the whole "Kyle Rittenhouse is a White Supremacist" fear porn. Yeah, the 17 year old was picking up trash, putting out fires and playing first responder. All the hallmarks of a crazed spree-killer.
I also forgot one of the biggest whoppers of all....Jessie Smollet was beat up by Trump supporters screaming that Chicago is MAGA country. How long did they run with that and some still are?
Smollet having all charges dropped gave us a glimpse of the two-tiered justice system now in place in America.
NYT remains the leader. Don't forget "Russians pay bounties to Taliban for dead US soldiers... and Trump doesn't care!"
I'm sorry to say that I've concluded I cant trust anything the media says unless it can be objectively verified. I have become much more cynical than I ever though I would.
Congratulations and kudos for your ability to change your opinion based on the facts.
Ha! I had to re-read this to realize just how much a compliment it is!!
I always take a breather whenever I read anything by any news source where people are "up in arms" or politicians make blanket "this is evil" statements. Take what happened in Ferguson, or the Russian bounty story that Glenn mentioned, or the Georgia election/Trump official story that was completely discredited when the audio recording came out. I have so many friends on the left and right both that I can hear what the "narrative is" for each, but try (hard, too hard sometimes!) to see through the rhetoric and find the truth. But it's not always easy and it takes so much time, that I appreciate Glenn more than he can possibly know. Because even if I don't always agree, I know he's not feeding me BS.
The timing of this release is not coincidental. With multiple other things consuming the news cycle, it was obviously decided to let this out now as opposed to during the hearings about the “insurrection.”
Astute observation. The other trend I observe is that these lies have shorter and shorter shelf-life. Launch it, milk it quick, discard. Repeat.
You, Taibbi et al will not get through to half of the US who're NYT consumers.
It's sad. It makes me worried for the future.
I've no idea how to move true believers, once converted, from their truth.
As always, well written article. Thank you.
You cannot reason someone out of a position which they did not reason themselves into.
THAT is an awesome observation!
Thank you, however I cannot claim it. It’s a variation on Jonathan Swift:
“Reasoning will never make a man correct an opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired.”
At least you steal from the best. ;-)
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Similarly, you can lead a person to logic but you can't make them think."
Well, you nailed the appropriate paraphrase!
Especially if they thought they DID use reason to arrive at their opinions.
I think it’s interesting that the postmodernists seem to be the most fervent in their beliefs these days. The primary tenet of postmodernism, that nothing is truly knowable, undercuts that certainty.
Postmodernists are always saying, "Don't listen to me. I don't know anything."
Nothing like half of the US reads the NY Times. Most of the country does not read a newspaper. Of those that do, USA Today is the favorite, followed closely by the WSJ (which is probably the only one that makes money). NYT isn't in the top 4 by paid circulation. Total paid subscriptions of newspapers you've heard of is probably less than 15MM (ignoring enterprise-wide licenses).
Take out the corporate accounts (hotel freebies) and USA Today is exposed as the joke that it is.
USA Today has been a shopper from the beginning. I worked for Gannett in New York back then and the news room got a big laugh until it started stealing reporters. Then it pulled out of the Audit Bureau over free hotel copies. Then G went on to destroy every small-town newspaper it could get its hands on.
Thanks. I didn't know about the Audit Bureau.
So, what we are left with is this: The capitol "rioters" killed no one. Not a single weapon was found on any of them. Stories about zip tie handcuffs already have been thoroughly rebutted. That's the closes to a weapon they could get. And, anyone watching that day, or catching up on YouTube before they pulled it down, could see security personnel moving stanchions and waving "rioters" in, then opening the doors of the capitol and letting still more in.
This wasn't a riot. It was a spectacle organized by the media to fit a narrative. I've know that since Day 1. It just took a while for all the evidence to be assembled.
It was dumb! If Trump couldn't offer real evidence of fraud, what was he thinking -- that thousands of his supporters could take over the government by pushing, yelling and screaming their way into the capitol. What would they have done if they had, in fact, cornered Pelosi or Pence? That's not the way it is done -- by either dimmicrats or raypooblicans.
There's plenty of evidence of election fraud and unconstitutional law changes. But I am not going to get into that because I believe that nobody's mind can be changed on that now. Simply ask yourself if you believe that Biden got 12 million more votes than Obama (most popular president)? And was it a co-incident that all 6 states stopped counting at exactly the same time on election night?
As for Trump - I am not a fan of his because he didn't pardon Assange, Snowden etc. But anyone who tells you he incited the Capitol stuff is lying to you. I watched it all go down live. Trump was speaking and on stage till 1:15PM. Capitol was breached at 12:40PM according to WaPo (anti trump source). It is nearly 1.5mi from the Ellipse to the Capitol, at least 30-40 min walk. Anyone who claimed his speech was inciting anything at the Capitol is hiding the truth that the Capitol was breached 45 minutes before Trump's speech ended and 40 minute walk away.
There is more than ample evidence that this election was "fortified" (to use Time magazine's Newspeak phrase.) Secondly, Trump did NOT ask his supporters to do what you are insinuating that he did. I'm trying to figure out the purpose of your post and there doesn't appear to be one.
You are simply wrong about what Trump did on 01/06. Just for the record, he never called Nazis "good people" and he never "urged his followers to ingest household disinfectants," as the idiotic Bill Maher said with a straight face the other night.
Bill Maher seems to be turning slowly BACK to what he began as, a libertarian, but he has a way to go yet, and TDS is a convenient bandwagon.
50 years ago as a "journalist" I was taught to leave my opinion to myself. Where are these people being educated? Pravda? the CCP?
Modern universities. So, yes.
Then maybe our state representatives should review very severely the J-schools. If people in the media don't want to learn to tell the truth and prefer to prevaricate, they can always run for political office.
If only it was just the journalism schools.
*with tongue in cheek* The well-regarded Columbia School of Journalism, among others.
Medical Student EXPELLED for questioning "Micro-Aggressions" Can SUE University. This case would make Kafka jealous. Here's the full breakdown of the judgment allowing Kieran Bhattacharya to sue University of Virginia.:
https://youtu.be/UlWs4bg49Ek
Wonder how he made out ....
That was my experience 40-something years ago.
And this tidbit of truth comes on the heels of Maxine Waters' call to violence in Minnesota - for which she'll never receive as much as a slap on the wrist from those who impeached Trump for less.
The judge in the Chauvin case has already admitted to the defense that Waters just gift wrapped them an appeal and presented it on a silver platter by running her mouth. The jury should have been sequestered from the beginning.
hmmm... so an appeal means more riots, protests, headlines, and mostly, politicians pandering and grandstanding.
Gee...that couldn't have been her plan all along...could it ?
I love that you think Maxine Waters is capable of creating and executing a plan. Democrats in general, sure, maybe.
Like many, she seems capable of following directions.
Exactly..."useful idiots"
Easily sacraficed useful idiots, or is that redundant.
She does grift pretty well
Nah, I think she knew exactly what she was doing and did it on purpose. These politicians aren't stupid.
Not even Ms. Waters?
What seems stupidity to some is malice when it’s done repeatedly .
Maybe not. But at the very minimum, Chauvin was negligent and complicit in Floyd’s death. Fentanyl or not, Floyd was subdued and at the point that occurred, the police hold some responsibility for his safety.
The real question is whether or not the state overcharged him on purpose or just out of incompetence.
I've watched all the videos and can't see Chauvin is either negligent or complicit. Police are not medics or doctors. Floyd and his choices are responsible for his death. If anyone is complicit, blame the unruly and threatening crowd that delayed effective medical attention for Mr. Floyd, although he may well have died as a result of his drug consumption and comorbidities regardless of medical intervention. Floyd resisted all attempts to get him into the squad car. Chauvin's job was to control and detain Floyd. Street-wise habitual criminals like Floyd are adept at tactics like yelling "I can't breathe" and "I'm cooperating while in fact no cooperating." Nine minutes seems like a long time sitting at your laptop; not so much if you are trying to control a 6'4" 240lb criminal surrounded by a threatening crowd.
My order of blame for the Floyd incident lies on 1. His drug dealer friend with him who told him to swallow the drugs (and might have even gotten him to use the counterfeit bills but he pleaded the 5th), then the crowd, especially the mma guy, then Floyd himself.
It’s true that if Floyd had climbed in the patrol car and not resisted arrest, he well made have died en route or shortly afterwards.
"I've watched all the videos and can't see Chauvin is either negligent or complicit. Police are not medics"
Apparently you missed the part where there was an EMT on the scene - a woman who is a part of the local fire department who was specifically called on scene to deliver aide - who Chauvin explicitly turned away when she offered to help. She witnessed the whole thing and her testimony was damning.
Yeah, cops AREN'T medics, but don't they have a responsibility to listen to one who's already on scene and who indicates action is needed at that moment and they're there to provide it? You rightwingers are bloodthirsty with blind rage and lose your common sense.
Nope. Thanks for the attack but you seem to be blind to the rest of what she admitted in cross examination. She admitted that they prefer to load and go if the crowd around them show signs of aggression and when she was shown pics of the mma guy literally being held back by another dude with his eyes all red, shouting at them “pussy, I will f you up” etc, then it’s not safe for them. The scene must be cleared and safe before they can administer aid.
I would say your bias is what’s clouding your judgement. I am someone whose opinion changed from Chauvin guilty to him not guilty. His drug dealer in the car who told him to swallow drugs, the crowd and Floyd himself took his life.
It’s also interesting you accuse others of being blood thirsty when you are yourself okay with a lynch mob run by democrat politicians like Maxine waters and governor of MN to literally threaten a jury, especially when the judge is so stupid to not even sequester the jury in such a high profile case. One day you or someone you love may have their fifth amendment rights violated of a fair trial and due process and then you will learn the lesson that defending rights of those you hate is even more important than everything else. This is kangaroo court stuff and exactly what happens in third world countries.
Nope. She got toasted in cross-x. She tried to intervene and was out of line. Go back and watch the questioning by the defense lawyer
It's a long time for kneeling on a neck ....
He wasn’t kneeling on neck as proven during trial. It was the shoulder blade.
Except they aren’t struggling to control him.
And who really wants cops putting knees on necks?
Maybe some of us have had more interesting police encounters than others.
Overall, I think the police do a great job and keep our country out of banana republic zone.
These type of ignorant comments clearly show that most people didn’t even watch the trial or only watched the edited clips and have zero facts with them.
And the crowd did not seem that threatening to me.
Watching the trial changed my mind on all of that. I went from him being guilty back when it happened to maybe guilty of some charges when the full body cam video was leaked to now "not guilty on any charges" after the trial.
Wow! I am of the opposite chain of opinion!
Or undercharged him.
Thinking they could put a lid on the violence, maybe? Good luck with that...
There has been a coup, an insurrection, under way for five years. It started with the FBI investigating and harassing Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, General Flynn, and Donald Trump. The military-industrial complex has secretly run the government since the assassination of JFK and Trump was a threat.
Their allies in the media reported negatively on Trump more than 90% of the time, with Carl Bernstein repeatedly saying whatever Trump had done in every passing week was "worse than Watergate". The corrupt politicians James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, and Adam Schiff lied to congress, lied to the American people, and made the voters believe that Trump colluded with Russia. When that lie was exposed, they called Trump a Russian spy. Finally, just before the 2020 election, they spread the fake story that Russia paid a bounty to the Taliban to kill American soldiers.
At the same time, riots spread all over the nation, co-ordinated by Marxists and anarchists who communicated by Twitter, Facebook, and with their Smart Phones. Pallets of bricks mysteriously showed up a pre-arranged riot sites so that bricks could be thrown at police.
Crooked politicians ordered their police departments to step down and not enforce the laws. Crooked DA's let criminals out of jail without bail and Kamala Harris' team paid the bail for those who weren't let out free.
When Hunter Biden's laptop was discovered, it was called "Russian disinformation" and to this date no one has questioned him about the pictures or the emails that implicate him and his father in criminal actions.
Now, America is run by mobs. I saw the governor of Minnesota on television tonight and he stressed how important it is to "reimagine" the racist police forces in America. Specifically, he said that no one should be killed for driving a car without a legal registration. Somehow, he forgot to mention that George Floyd broke a Federal law by trying to pass counterfeit money and that he resisted arrest. Maxine Waters went to Minneapolis today and said that if Derek Chauvin is not convicted of the most serious charges against him, the people should riot.
Whether there is a hung jury or whether Chauvin is found guilty of the least serious charge, even if he is found guilty of the most serious charge, there will be nationwide riots (because his attorney will certainly appeal any conviction based on Maxine Waters' statement and the fact that Chauvin couldn't get a fair trial in Minneapolis).
Critical Race Theory is being taught in secondary schools and 108,000 illegal aliens have been apprehended at the southern border in the past three months - up from 9,000 in 2020.
Meanwhile, Russia has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's border and MASH units have been set up to the expected wounded casualties. China is doing daily fly-overs of Taiwan to test the willingness of the USA to protect our ally.
It's over.
A beautiful post, ruined by surrender.
He should have been. Glad he was.
Reading the comments below and Glenn's latest article, the words that come to mind are 'cognitive dissonance'. When leftists are confronted with FACTS from very credible sources they suffer from the above mentioned affliction. The only way to solve it is to do one of 2 things. Accept the truth and make an informed and rational response to their partisanship while taking the political grifters and liars into account. Or 2, as many on the thread below have shown and our media have clearly shown - Ignore the truth because it doesn't fit their ideological political cult and claim the offenders are liars or racists - whichever fits better.
This is the state of politics today. As Glenn has previously said the left (and some on the right) have turned politics into their religion and can no longer debate or listen to sound arguments that oppose their ideological agendas.
America's enemies are laughing at what weak-minded fools many of us have become. Rightfully so.
One thing that Trump did get right. Not all - but MANY in the press are the enemy of the people but only the people whom they disagree with politically. They will lie, cheat, steal be on the take for their leftist religion and the majority our news is pathetically 'spun' in every way. Every story.
We need writers like Glenn Greenwald who believes in fairness and open dialogue to form a coalition of REAL JOURNALISTS. America needs REAL JOURNALISTS now more then ever.
/END RANT
So, they can now finally call them "rioters" instead of "insurrectionists." Man, that term always galled me since they knew full well there was never any insurrection.
But hey, never let a crisis go to waste. Even if you have to make it up.
Keep hammering them, Glenn. Who knows, you may even make a few journalists out of that gaggle of agenda pushers.
Meh - the Associated Press still refers to the recession as "The Great Recession" - as if that's a universally accepted term. The only people I know who call the recession The Great Recession are reporters for the AP ...
And now I see AP doesn't like "mistress" anymore. Geeeeze
AP last year ran a piece on how they will start capitalizing Black but not white. That was enough for me to stop giving them clicks.
Since I am white, I started to do the same thing (Black/white), sarcastically. What else but riot am i suppose to do in the face of such blatant racism.
I have always thought EXACTLY the same thing about "The Great Recession (echoes down the hallway, hallway, hallway...)."
It will make no difference: in service of a greater good as they will say.
Yeah like they're going to stop calling them insurrectionists.
I know, right? I mean in this case, (and hopefully going forward? who knows...) The WaPo must have rather have had a root canal than use "rioters" - but they did.
Wait until they feel obligated to tell the full truth abouth the TRESPASSERS!
Excuse me for being unfair to ARMED tresspassers.
except they weren't armed
I know, that was my point, but my fault for being confusing. The vast majority of law-breakers on Jan. 6 are only guilty of trespassing, and even the trouble-makers were un-armed. Watch the lying media, if they ever feel they must backtrack from "rioters," they still won't tell this whole truth.
I was pleased to read your take at the end of this piece. We know the officer was survived by his mother. I'm not sure what other close family he had, but I'm sure there were others. Tragically he died at the young age of 42. The media and Dem exploitation of his death can only have caused his poor mother and family greater pain. You hear it often - parents are not supposed to outlive their children. It's just beyond reprehensible. These vultures have very dark souls.
Do they have souls?
Are you sure?
I'll let God sort that one out.
They sold them long ago, or at least leased them to the highest bidder.
Thank you -- the family should sue the corporate media for deliberate fabrication and the suffering caused !!!
It is possible that the anti-rioting that Sicknick helped thwart on January 6th contributed to a stroke, but I've known marathoners who, out training one day, suffer strokes and die. I wonder how much pressure the DC Medical Examiner was under to find SOME link to the rioting.
Stress could have played a part. But, unfortunately, I'm afraid Sicknick's day were numbered. Two strokes with blood clots at his brain stem, at 42. Those clots were ticking time bombs.
Thank God for Glenn Greenwald.
If I was the Sicknick family, I would be inclined to SUE the shit out of every MSM outlet that pushed those lies.
Secondly, I read your Twitter thread about this and was genuinely shocked to see people FLAT OUT DENY that this lie ever happened. It is the most blatant cognitive dissonance I've ever seen!
And for WHAT??? The Democrat fascist party is hardly worth defending in any way!
In my view, the entire Capitol "incident" was a false flag. I saw video of the Capitol police literally waving protesters in. The dude wearing the horns and all of them taking selfies with Capitol police, etc., reminded me of a very poorly organized PLAY. I missed the part where Ashley Babbit was shot, but the rioters reminded me of ANTIFA/BLM as those of us here in Portland, Oregon are very familiar with their antics. It looked to me as if these characters were brought in to give the effect of an "insurrection" that Democrats wanted. All of this so that the GOP could not present to American voters, proof of ELECTION FRAUD..
Biden won more votes than Obama? Bwa-HAHAHAHAHA! A guy who campaigned in his basement and whose rallies couldn't fill a broom closet won the election? Come on, Man! The theft of the election was nothing new to Dems, having cheated Sanders out of 2 primaries. Instead much later Time Mag treats us to an op-ed where it was explained that the election was "fortified" by a shadowy cabal of players.
The coup wasn't the Antifa embiciles who ran all the chaos at the Capitol, it was the election itself. What happened at the Capitol was to DISTRACT from election fraud...er,..uh...fortifying.
The entire MSM is completely pathological. One big sociopath. I stopped watching ALL of it in 2016, with the exception of Tucker once in awhile.. and I watch only when he addresses shit like this while the others won't. I'm an Independent, not wedded to either party, yet the countless times I've been berated as a white supremacist, a right winger, etc when calling out Dem party/MSM falsehoods is too numerous to count.
I am SO grateful for your commitment to truth, Glenn even though I know you yourself have been berated when in pursuit of the truth. We need more journalists who do this and have integrity. And while MSM does not, I implore people to do the healthiest thing for themselves (and society as a whole) and turn that shit off. Doing so will allow the daylight of reality to shine through. Sad state of affairs. Excellent article. Shared!
Yep. Many people forget that the "insurrection" conveniently stopped evidence from being presented about the election.
How is making Sicknick a martyr libel or slander? And keep in mind the New York Times v. Sullivan rule -- you can lie in newspaper and media stories as long as you observe the full heart empty head rule. If you are stupid, fail to interview others about the truth, don't care about accuracy but are not malicious or intentional in your carelessness, "absent malice" protects you from suit. Sicknick's mother became a public figure by trying to stop the lies.
I am not a lawyer but psychological trauma from reading news about my son being head bashed can be pretty bad and worth suing for.
think "Sullivan" might be challenged in the near future, too many "journalists" are using it as a shield to print/say/tweet anything
OK, so the election was "stolen" in '20, but not in '16?
An Independent? For whom did you vote?
I want to see Marcy apologize to you first.
I take issue with this: “...Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱).”
Unarmed does not *not dangerous.*
It would seem the cop was justified as she was attempting to breach the broken glass doors in the barricaded Speaker's Lobby - outside the Chamber, which was occupied by Capitol staff and members of Congress- and had a riotous, angry, and loud mob of people behind her.
Do I remember something wrong?
take issue with this: “...Ashli Babbitt, who was shot point blank in the neck by Capitol Police 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱).”
Unarmed does not *not dangerous.*
+++
She was unarmed. That's a fact. I wasn't commenting on whether the shooting was nonetheless justified under the circumstances, though I do think it's ironic that the whole point of the summer protests was that cops should stop shooting unarmed people, including in protests and even riots where violence is sometimes used.
I am not the "back the blue" types as I believe spineless cops who only listen to what their boss tells them instead of upholding the constitution are the same ones who will probably one day arrive at your door step to disarm you - just like they did with arresting innocent business owners who just tried to make a living over the last year. You could hold a back the blue rally and police would stand by and watch as Antifa decapitates you and then curbstomp your severed head because it doesn’t have a mask on it. With that said, I also think police shootings need to be looked at depending upon the circumstances.
At least the "cops are hunting down blacks" narrative is bs for sure.
I researched this in 2020. These are also sourced from WaPo - as leftists as they come. WaPo has logged all fatal police shootings since 2015 in this database:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/
Despite their headline, the data tells you a different story. In 2019 there were a total of 999 killings. 858 shootings in which the race was noted. 405 killed were white, 249 were black. Blacks were significantly more likely to have a deadly weapon than a white suspect. Yet more white suspects were killed. There were ONLY 12 cases where the blacks were unarmed - 11 men and 1 women. 7 of these cases - the suspect attacked the cop with eyewitness or camera footage corroboration confirming it. Out of the rest - 1 was an apparent accident. 2 cases - the cop was charged. The others were ongoing investigation when I researched this last year.
One can figure out themselves if in a population of over 360 million, these numbers are anything close to "police are hunting down blacks" or not.
Is there a particular reason why you used the outdated data which relies on under-counting since many police/sheriff jurisdictions do not inform FBI of fatal shootings, rather than the more accurate data which sleazy WaPo know uses? The link is on the WaPo page you linked to:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
That more accurate data shows quote:
"Although half of the people shot and killed by police are White, Black Americans are shot at a disproportionate rate. They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans. Hispanic Americans are also killed by police at a disproportionate rate."
The figures are then broken down to reveal Black amerikans are killed by 'law enforcement' at a rate of 32 persons per million per year, 2019 total 1497 black humans killed out of a total population of 42 million humans.
Hispanic amerikans are killed at a rate of 27 persons per million per year, Total 2019, 1,052 Hispanic humans killed out of a total population of 39 million humans.
White amerikans are killed at a rate of 15 per million per year. 2019 total is 2884 humans killed out of a total population of 197 million humans.
Whichever way anyone tries to cut it Black amerikans are more likely to be shot by police than hispanics and far more likely to be killed by police than white amerikans.
They are more likely because centuries of structural rascism has left higher proportion of African amerikans born into poverty than either Hispanic or white amerikans.
We should all know that 'law enforcement' is specifically designed to protect the rich & oppress the impoverished.
Ordinary people had banks and other financial institutions blatantly take their homes from them since 2008, no one has been charged, much less questioned for that egregious criminality, more likely they copped a bonus!
Yet a poor person found to have a joint or a toot on him/her, solely for their own use, gets tossed in the jug and onto the amerikan gulag conveyor belt every hour of every day in amerika. That is lucky - unlucky is being shot and killed by one of these over-paid (eg Long Island cops average more than $200,000 per year in pay), protectors of the rich. When asked wy the poor person was shot, all the cop has to say is "he/she was carrying drugs" and that is the end of the matter. For poor amerikans life is not very different than the life of poor people in Victorian London - minor crimes can carry the death penalty without trial, just at the whim of the oppressors' thugs.
outdated data? I literally put a link to the 2019 data which I researched during the 2020 riots. How is that outdated?
Rest of your comment including terms like "structural rascism" is spouting typical talking points from places like VOX which misrepresent facts.
> They account for less than 13 percent of the U.S. population, but are killed by police at more than twice the rate of White Americans.
This is the type of misrepresentation which I am talking about. If we are really going by the "13% of population is black" logic, then despite being 13% population, in 2016 blacks committed 53% of murders, 54% robberies, 43% weapons offences, 38% of all violent crimes. How about we take it a step further because only 6% of the 13% is males - so by your logic, we would conclude that 6% of the population is committing 53% of the murders. Is that logic good? Because if it is, then that logic can be used by real racists to validate their logic. Stats:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
So should the demographic committing 53% of murders not get expected to get shot? Are people now reporting the wrong race on who murdered someone? Should cops simply not shoot and get shot instead when the other person is armed or attacks them? Should Jacob Blake or Ricardo Munoz have not been shot when both were about to attack the cops with a knife?
And before you start pulling out the "systemic racism" and "stats are lies" card, this isn't even about racism as shown here that whites are arrested 71.0% for "Drug abuse violations" vs 26.7% for blacks, whites commit more rapes at 67.6% vs 29.1% for blacks:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
So if this really was about numbers lying because of some bias, why won't they also lie about whites committing significantly more rapes and drugs? Obviously murder is a much worse crime than rape or drug and therefore more shootings for that demographic.
Also fun fact, Hispanics and then black officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect as compared to a white officer.
Stats for unarmed blacks shot by cops:
https://www.phillypolice.com/assets/directives/cops-w0753-pub.pdf
Page 32
Definition of OIS (Officer involved shooting) is on page 17
Definition of TPFs (threat perception failures) is on page 30
TPF of white officer against black suspect is 6.8
TPF of black officer against black suspect is 11.4
TPF of hispanic officer against black suspect is 16.7
Aka Hispanics and then black officers are more likely to shoot an unarmed black suspect. The claim that white officers are more likely to kill black suspects is complete bullshit. White cops are the least likely to kill unarmed blacks. (Stats for asian cops isn't available as it's negligible.)
So is now your "structural racism" is coming from hispanic and black officers towards their own race?
As I have stated before, this is not about race - I am simply stating them because that's usually what talking points care about. It's about fatherlessness pandemic and socio-economic conditions in mostly democrat run cities for decades which have made the communities dependant on welfare and not improved their lives. We can complain about police brutality all we want but until we fix the root cause of the problem, nothing will change. When you have over 50 people shooting each other in Chicago over a weekend, you probably shouldn't be complaining about police brutality.
One more thing - to get rid of bad cops - we should be doing exact opposite of what democrat policies encourage. Aka we should maybe look at removing police unions which are the reason bad cops stay protected. Same with teacher unions preventing bad cops from getting fired.
I also don't know why you have spelled American as "amerikans" several times through out your comment.
One think you are correct on is the financial institutions and establishment getting away with corruption. But then you conflate it with structural racism and that's where you are wrong. You just have to be part of the establishment to get away with crimes. You can be white or black but as long as you are part of the establishment, you get away with it. You can be Hunter Biden or Bush or Rick Snyder or Maxine Waters or corrupt mayors of Chicago, Baltimore etc. Being part of establishment, regardless of skin color makes you immune.
If there really was "structural racism", then Asians, Indians and Nigerians immigrants wouldn't be the most successful races and least shot by cops. They don't get shot at much because they don't resist arrest and that's because of a strong nuclear family structure where they are taught not to resist arrest as the father is present in the house. Unless you think the melanin in American blacks is somehow different from Nigerians or Indians or something?
This is precisely the kind of analysis that CNN will never present.
Honestly, the reason why I know these stats is because I myself used to be a default liberal until 4-5 years ago and used to believe in all the lies. Then certain things happened which made me research things myself and now I am more of a black-pilled liberal.
I would recommend this video of Larry Elder vs Dave Rubin where you can precisely see the moment Larry red pills Dave:
https://youtu.be/IFqVNPwsLNo
They’ve got their “experts” and their “trusted sources”. They don’t need no stinking analysis! 😅
Outstanding analysis. Bravo.
"It's about fatherlessness pandemic and socio-economic conditions in mostly democrat run cities for decades which have made the communities dependant on welfare and not improved their lives."
Many of us in the reality-based community call this part of The Quadruple Whammy:
1. Welfare incentivizes out-of-wedlock births and disincentivizes employment. The result is that some 70% of blacks are raised by single mothers.[1]
2. Government schools generally, but particularly in the inner cities, are an unmitigated disaster. Among high school seniors, only 20% are proficient in geography, 22% in science, 24% is math, 37% in reading, and an astonishing 12% in U.S. history.[2] Thus most black young adults have little or know knowledge or skills to offer employers.
3. Minimum wages effectively price the victims of Whammies 1 and 2 out of the job market as they cannot produce enough value to justify the wage, thus preventing young people from getting that crucial first job.
4. The War on Drugs™, which has resulted in the caging of millions of blacks, with black men having high incarceration rates[3] and suffering selective arrest and prosecution.
All of these policies were created by Democrats. The combination has almost destroyed the black community, creating a vast underclass which not-so-coincidentally will consistently vote Democrat to keep the benefits gravy train rolling.
If you are looking for systemic racism in the U.S., this is as close as it gets.
From chattel slavery to Jim Crow and the KKK, the Democrats have always been the party of racism. Their current hysterical obsession with racism is utter projection.
They traded the antebellum plantation for a modern welfare state. The turning point came when President Johnson flipped to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which had been filibustered by Strom Thurmond, Democrat senator from NC. When asked about it, LBJ said:
"I’ll have them n****rs voting Democratic for the next two hundred years." [5]
It is difficult to imagine a more concise and accurate description of Democratic domestic policy.
******
[1] Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women.
https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/
[2] The Nation's Report Card.
https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/
[3] Black Incarceration Rates are Dropping in the U.S.
https://www.statista.com/chart/18376/us-incarceration-rates-by-sex-and-race-ethnic-origin/
[4] Racial Disparity In Marijuana Arrests
https://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests/
[5] Lyndon B. Johnson, speaking to two governors about his true motivations regarding his support of civil rights legislation, while aboard Air Force One, as described in Ronald Kessler's book, "Inside the White House."
Thank you, I will save this to my knowledgeable. If you would like a good read on the fatherlessness problem:
To Truly Reduce Racial Disparities, We Must Acknowledge Black Fathers Matter
https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/12/to-truly-reduce-racial-disparities-we-must-acknowledge-black-fathers-matter/
I read late last year that it's as high as 76% in blacks and 25% in whites. Fatherlessness in both races is exploding and it needs to be addressed.
Well done. And for being well studied on the subject with facts you'll be called names by the prevailing orthodoxy.
Probably true. I no longer care about labels. I embrace them. This is why republican politicians absolutely suck because they run at the very sight of someone calling them a mean word - and this is why Trump exploited this weakness and won the nominee.
You should start your own blog if you haven’t already. I’d follow the shit out of you.
I’ve done a lot of this research over the years, but almost no one has put all those stats and arguments together into 1 cohesive article like that.
Lol, if I ever start one, I will sure share it here.
Thanks for doing this.
“outdated data which relies on under-counting since many police/sheriff jurisdictions do not inform FBI of fatal shootings, rather than the more accurate data which sleazy WaPo know uses?“
Did you miss that part? Just curious. Cause if you’re going to use numbers given to us by the very police we are getting killed by, lied to and about, and who have been sweeping shit under the rug for generations since they were originally slave hunters.... then it’s kind of pointless. There’s even national guns registries for weapons used in murder that to this day many police departments don’t participate in. There’s no excuse other than to hide truths; maybe about where those weapons come from, and where they go back out to till someone else dies.
Just saying... I wouldn’t trust their numbers. They’re the ones on trial for being dishonest and violent, remember?!
Daniela, where did you get the idea that police “under-count” fatal shootings? After Fox News drew attention to their database as definitive evidence for the extremely low rate of unjustified police shootings of blacks, the Post “reanalyzed” their data and came up with another few events. The bottom line is that a black person not involved in a crime and not physically attacking a policeman is about as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as to be killed by a police officer. I could lecture you for DAYS about “Social Justice Statistics.”
I addressed this clearly in my comment when I stated:
"this isn't even about racism as shown here that whites are arrested 71.0% for "Drug abuse violations" vs 26.7% for blacks, whites commit more rapes at 67.6% vs 29.1% for blacks:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
So if this really was about numbers lying because of some bias, why won't they also lie about whites committing significantly more rapes and drugs? Obviously murder is a much worse crime than rape or drug and therefore more shootings for that demographic."
If the intention of the police was really to somehow make whites look better than blacks, won't they do it for rapes, drugs etc too? Are people simply reporting the wrong race when they see a murder?
It is fairly obvious the numbers are mostly reliable because these numbers have had the same trend under both democrat and republican Department of Justices. Also it's fairly obvious that the primary reason people don't want to go to places like Chicago, Baltimore etc is because they don't want to get shot. Chicago literally has a dedicated website for shootings each day:
https://heyjackass.com
And Chicago, Baltimore etc is run by democrats for decades, has black mayor, black police Superintendent etc. Are they all lying about their own race? There has to be a limit to the cognitive dissonance.
Slave hunters? Where do you guys get this deluded misinformation? Here, honey, educate yourself. https://www.britannica.com/topic/police/The-history-of-policing-in-the-West
So, we should trust yours?
Hold on now, do you have data on the Nigerian prince scam? Add that in there and THEN tell me the real numbers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam
Blacks are 4 times as likely to commit murder and serious assault than other racial/ethnic groups. Not surprising, even accepting your numbers, if they are shot at double the rate of whites. (BTW, does not even consider the disparate black v. white rate of resisting arrest).
Your argument reminds me of the complaints that NJ state troopers were disproportionately pulling over black drivers on the Turnpike. Until cameras with radar were set up on overpasses and showed that black drivers disproportionately exceeded the speed limit.
Over 95% of those shot by cops are men! Even female cops mostly shoot men! Men only make up 50% of the population! Therefore police is blatantly sexist and we must start bias training! - VOX logic.
Men are entirely more violent and risky than women. Yes, we’ve got some bad bitches on our side too. But y’all take the cake and it isn’t even worth talking about till you all start to see.
One more thing. Replying because Substack doesn't allow edits-
26 unarmed whites were killed while 12 unarmed blacks were killed in 2019. Saying X were killed out of Y population is irrelevant when they are either armed or attack the cop.
If using left leaning WaPo's own data isn't enough to convince you about your own narrative, then I don't know what can.
Left 'leaning'... HAH! Try Left Comrade Wing of the DNC. ;)
Fair point. If you asked me the truth, I would say they all belong to the Establishment Uniparty.
Law enforcement focuses on those demographics participating in crime. They don't care what percentage of the population a particular demographic is. The TRUTH is that about 1000 people are killed by cops every year. Most during an exchange of gunfire. Of the few dozen unarmed persons killed, most were attacking the officer and he was in fear of losing his firearm (after getting his @ss kicked). In a country of 350M people, this is statistically zero. The anti-cop trope is leftist agitation. Mathematics, not racism, dictates that the most justifiable shootings, accidental shootings, unjustifiable shootings and scared sh!tless shootings will always disproportionately effect the most violent and criminal demographic in society.
"Whichever way anyone tries to cut it Black amerikans are more likely to be shot by police than hispanics and far more likely to be killed by police than white amerikans."
Nope, sorry........ you stopped churning data when it didn't suit you, when you factor in the 'engagements' between the races and Police you'll find whites are actually shot more often. I know, bummer right?
You’re failing to account for police interactions and crime rates within certain demographics. The vast majority, and it’s not even close, of police interactions regardless of demographic aren’t violent. Also, while past structural racism is likely a causal factor it does not account for everything within this context. I encourage you to read Thomas Sowell’s lengthy dissection of such issues in his books. “Discrimination and Disparities” along with with “White Liberals and Black Rednecks.”
Your “analysis” is completely wrong. CNNisFakeNews debunks it quite capably. Murder is a crime that nearly always gets reported, and blacks, per capita, commit murder many times more than other groups. Many of the exceedingly rare police shootings are by nonwhite cops. And, to restate a well known fact, police get many times more calls for help from predominantly black areas.
Mostly true...obviously the elite behind things are afraid of a black population with hope, energy, and inspiration. But don't assume it's entirely about race...it's about keeping anybody down who is inspiring dignity and hope to underclasses. That's why Jesus had to go and is still a threat.
I'm expecting some scientific archeological "evidence" pushing fer porn about something or other...aliens....and scientific "evidence" disproving ANYTHING that supports hope and dignity for human life.
Your observation that it's not about race is so true. I would just note that a great deal of violent crime comes from cities that have had minority majority city councils, and elected black mayors, and district attorneys and have had black police chiefs appointed. And remember if the evidence you see encouraging fear is reported in the media, it's probably not true. My guess is that next will be imminent disaster this year for sure due to climate change global warming.
Yes, because there are so many examples of majority black countries around the world that are great successes (high standard of living, lack of crime, freedom of speech and religion, etc.). If only elites in America would stop suppressing hope, energy, and inspiration among the black population.
Wow, talk about a racist post?! Worst I've seen under a Greenwald article! And you paid to post here? Glenn should give you your money back and ask you go go packing.
Fear porn....or maybe alien porn, who knows.
How old are you?
This Capitol Police officer did not show the restraint that the police showed all summer in Portland while they were being assaulted and pelted with projectiles.
How many "mostly peaceful protesters" throwing frozen bottles or setting patrol cars on fire were shot by police last summer? The message received loud and clear is that it is ok to shoot an unarmed right wing wacko but it is not ok to shoot a left wing wacko.
As LEO I feel like I can comment with the knowledge and training I have had for over 25 years. Unarmed is unarmed. There were other ways to stop the "threat." I am not going to list them because they are numerous. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. I try to never put myself in the shoes of another LEO on how they perceived the threat.. Deadly etc. What was going on at the Capitol was chaos for LEO.. That officer had no way of knowing that if Babbitt made entry did she have a deadly weapon? (It is worth noting that the rest of the responding officers used restraint as you stated.) Many of the rioters had adapted many common items into deadly weapons.. blunt force trauma etc.. In my mind it was justified.. but then comes the question.. Can I or should I? I was horrified at the "peaceful protests" of BLM over the summer. I condemned the violence and believed that deadly force was justified but not used in many confrontations so I will not adjust my condemnation just because the rioters were Trump supporters.
As for Sicknick.. I 100% believe his strokes were brought on by responding to the riots. The stress would have exacerbated what could have been a prior condition. It is no different than George Floyd's prior medical condition being the reason Chauvin's actions brought on respiratory failure. No different than a person dying from cardiac arrest after a gunshot that would have been survivable in a healthy person. The list goes on.
As for the Capitol "riot's" themselves, the lying media took a condemnable situation and turned it into Nazi's committing genocide. They pushed a narrative that was so over the top it was ALMOST laughable. I sat and watched as many of those rioters WALKED through the building and stayed inside the line ropes! I fully support the prosecution of those that committed violence but in the grand scheme of things this riot was child's play compared to the destruction of the summer BLM "peaceful protests."
Bottom line is Sicknick would be alive if not for the actions of the rioters. Had he not been pushed to his physical limit responding to the riots he "might" have been able to realize his symptoms were not just from stress and hours of physical confrontation, but from a deadly medical condition, and sought treatment. Should've, Would've Could've.
Glenn you are spot on regarding the lying media and I love your articles. The lying media convoluted the death of Sicknick giving the impression he died from a violent, weaponized, physical attack.. The reality is he most likely died from the stress of his response, however it is not nearly as shocking as a violent mob of LEO murdering Trump supporters to vilify half of this country.
You have no evidence whatsoever to make inferences about the cause of Sicknick’s death. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? They teach you in any first year critical thinking class that such an inference is faulty. Tens of thousands of people die of natural causes every day. Many of them die young, and many of them, no doubt, experienced some stressor on the day they died. But so did millions of people who didn’t die!
You know how I know this is nothing more than political affiliation of Babbitt? Because we don't even know the name of the cop, nor any body cam footage etc. Everything else is an excuse.
Must be great to be able to foretell the future. So, according to your crystal ball, Sicknick would be alive if not for the actions of the rioters. Really? Are you a cardiologist? Did you examine Sicknick Jan 5 and tell him, you will have a stroke and die tomorrow if you confront Trump supporters, but if you stay home you will live to be 85?
Glenn, have you watched any of the footage of the riots the nights after Floyd's death? I encourage you to go through all of Regg Life's (aka Regg Inkognedo) footage. I'd wager less than 0.01% of the nation has seen it. I wonder what someone of your stature would think of such footage.
https://youtu.be/cHcELsLF7cg
Don't you know burning down innocent people businesses is not as bad as having a few hippies walk into the people's chambers - the capitol building - to ask for an investigation into the elections and some breaking a few glasses and putting their feet on Pelosi's desk? Politicians > innocent businesses.
I thought the whole point of the summer protests was the murder of unarmed Black men/women.
yea............ only the ENTITLEDS matter ...........
Aka establishment Democrat propaganda.
Bless you, Glenn.
Was that the point of including that phrase? To point out the irony of the summer protests?
The point is to convey the lack of trust in Glenn's use of the word irony. It's a bit apples and oranges to compare 1/6 to the summer social justice protests. Don't cha think. The summer protests were about many things but mostly that cops shouldn't sneak into your house at night and use deadly force. Or kill someone when they're already handcuffed. George wouldn't have gotten too far on foot in my opinion. And he truly wasn't a threat. If he was running my way I would simply make the decision to step aside or attempt to trip. The looting that happened was stupid but not ironic either. 1/6 was a bunch of delusional yahoos that were trying to stop the election certification because a few people told them that there was an evil plan afoot. Now if the yahoos were to put on a peaceful protest because of the shooting of an unarmed yahoo and the police killed a few of them, now you got something to get your hackles up. I find it deeply troubling when people try to equate these two. History is not going to have a hard time with this one.
I like your spin.
Because that's what it is. Spin. The 2020 riots and protests caused far more violence, far more property destruction to the tune of billions, were heavily stoked and promoted by media forces, and deeply divided people. The crime and murder rates in cities affected by the riots/protests also exploded afterwards. Why people like you want to pretend it's NBD while judging and shaming the capitol protest and holding it to a different standard is bizarre to me.
Is it the good old "one rule for my side and another rule for your side" that has plagued people since humans could first argue with each other? I'm aware of hypocrisies, but at least I acknowledge them.
Compared to the riots last summer, the Capitol riots were relatively peaceful. Not excusable, but innocent people weren’t killed ( except Ashli) federal buildings weren’t set on fire, average citizens didn’t have their businesses burned to the ground. Systemic police racism is not supported by statistics, Which is why you don’t ever hear BLM discussing data, only showing videos of individual instances.
What about the DOJ reports out of Ferguson and other places?
Substack is weird about notifications. We both replied to Glenn, but it notified you as if I was replying to you.
We were foolish to taunt the irony gods anyway. I think that you, myself and Glenn learned a little today
"We were foolish to taunt the irony gods anyway."
I love this. Thank you!
Indeed, we were.
Kinda like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife. don't cha think Glenn
She was unarmed, that's a fact. A sentence not judging the fact would not use the term "despite". Despite means "notwithstanding the adverse effects of" in that context, implying that she should not have been shot because she was unarmed.
I can't very well write that a person is a human being "despite" their race or sexuality, because it while both their humanity and the character trait are facts, the implication is that the second fact undermines their humanity.
Can someone file a FOIA request to release the name of the police officer that shot Ms. Babbitt?
Sorry. I'm a little busy today
They would likely claim 7(A) and 7(F) exemptions from FOIA disclosure requirements.
You are correct, of course.
Those people breaking into that area were likely bent on doing something extreme and violent. They were all hopped up and brainwashed and the adrenaline was through the roof. It was a recipe for disaster.
There were half a dozen police officers 6 feet away behind Babbitt, they did nothing to stop her. BTW normally the officer that pulled the trigger is named, why is this so different?
You know why, because the cop who shot him is African-American.
If this is true, why were they not carrying firearms? Your assertion seems ridiculous on even casual inspection. They did little damage and were quite nonviolent compared to, say, a BLM demonstration.
Because Trump supporters hate firearms! Or something!
https://heavy.com/news/2020/09/blm-protests/
This rationale for the violence is absurd on two fronts:
1) 93% isn't a very high rate of being peaceful. That means that there is about a 7% chance of each protest devolving into violence and destruction. In fact, the protests had a similar chance of getting violent as those over 80 have of dying of Covid (8%... all other age groups are FAR lower). Covid is seen as having a high enough level of risk that we needed to lock down every economy, yet the same amount of risk of violence during the BLM protests is seen as negligible.
2) Using this logic, you can say that the overwhelming number of Trump rallies were peaceful because there were millions of them and only a few involved violence. Yet this isn't the case. Trump supporters are being painted as extremely dangerous while people like you claim that BLM protests weren't at all because they only had a 7% of violence... and that's just in 2020! They have been behind numerous other riots since BLM started.
and heavy is such a good source ....... check their data source
she got the clueless thing all wired up ....... jerry nadler style
It was a recipe for over-reaction. Thanks for excusing it.
So hopped up they forgot their guns.
Nerts
1. She was surrounded by other security on her side and neither of them reacted to her like this.
2. The door was still closed and the glass even though had breaks was not broken and nor could she climb through once the glass was gone (It wasn't).
3. No warnings were given to her - the cop legit just randomly decided to shoot.
4. The cops let the crowd into the building. There's several videos of the cops saying "I don't agree with it but can respect it" while letting the people into capitol.
5. We still don't even know the name of the cop who shot her. If you can't see how this is not politically biased, then you are intentionally being blind.
6. Where were you during the anti-kavanaugh protests storming the capitol, senate and SCOTUS actively encouraged by Democrats? Or entire last year of riots and burning down of court houses?
Please go to DuckDuckGo and search for images of:
"anti kavanaugh protests capitol"
"anti kavanaugh protests senate"
"anti kavanaugh protests Supreme Court"
"anti kavanaugh protests storm"
And let me know what was different.
Well spoken. The cops that were behind and around her turn to leave right before the shots ring out, check it out. Another point every discussion ends up about race. I and many people I know are fed up with it.
Most of us get along at work at play in church in cities in country sides. When politics became the super bowl and Replaced sports along with religion and infused race into the American consciousness is when this slide into race addiction started. It’s every where. It as if the Madison ave marketing gurus just discovered hey there are black people. Asian hate crime hits the news awe man we better bring Asians into every spoke of advertising. Are there pockets of racist idiots, absolutely, is it rampant? It may be now thanks to the evolution of politics as the WWF or MMA of daily entertainment with a constant feeding frenzy of social media self proclaimed “journalists” in the Twitterdome and hundreds of other platforms springing up around the globe. Let us not forget the thousands of “researchers” googalizing us with “facts“ of alien conspiracies and baby eaters, diluting the truth with one grain of salt in a tub of dirty bath water. To quote a famous philosopher “can’t we all just get along”
"you doeth protest too much" is usually used when someone's hiding something and considering my comment has nothing to do with hiding facts (quite the opposite), that statement doesn't make much sense.
> And I understand why the officials refused to publish the name of the officer.
And this is why you are blind to the double standards and hypocrisy of the current political climate. If she was a black Biden supporter, buildings would have been burnt. If she was black Trump supporter or white Trump supporter in this case, she got gunned down and nobody from the "defund the police" crowd cares.
Considering you spout hysterical MSNPC propaganda about "burning down of the Reichstag" when that's literally what the Democrats encouraged all year last year, you are simply projecting and not arguing in good faith. Even mentioning anything to do with Germany makes me know you know nothing more than MSNPC talking points.
> The Kavanaugh protests were a long and extended exercise in hysterical political theatre.
Oh yea? Destroying an innocent man's life is politics? Pray to god you or some male family member of yours doesn't get their lives ruined by 36 year old false gang rape charges. Democrats literally created the very monster by encouraging protestors to storm the capitol, SCOTUS and Senate chambers 2 years ago. Kamala was literally bailing out the rioters from last year. They literally created the very monster.
But it's not worth arguing over as clearly we aren't living in applying consistent standards.
We had exactly a Reichstag Fire incident on Jan. 6th. Completely analogous. A trumped up excuse for unleashing a war on the political opposition. Thankfully the radical leftists haven't yet adopted the same level of ferocity...but I'm afraid it's coming.
Not sure how you can compare the two either as an act or as an outcome. One was a demonstration that got out of control, the other was arson. Reichstag arson was committed at night, by one or a few persons (that's unclear based on evidence). It wasn't poorly protected by police some of whom offered mob entry into the building, others preventing entry. One was severely damaged (Reichstag).
Reichstag ended in curtailment of civil liberties and WW2. Jan 6 led to the inauguration of President Biden, despite a number of legal challenges.
Some historians argue it was a false flag op by the Nazis, not a comintern plot. Is that what you're referring to? That the Jan 6 was a false flag op? The day after the fire, Hitler suspended most civil liberties. Very different situation and outcomes from my POV. Those rights were not reinstated until after the Nazis were toppled. If anything, the opposing party has pushed hard to reduce civil liberties. All depends on your political POV, I suppose. Have a nice day.
Well justified in your country. If this was a civilized country like say Scotland where I live, shooting an unarmed person in the neck or wherever who was storming the Parliament would be considered unjustified and murderous, but hey ho, we live where we live.
Lol, you've watched one movie well done, just goes to show your intellect. You live in an oligarchy on steroids, every construct of your Government and media is owned by billionaires, and sadly you're a product of this society where obviously the murderous, criminal invasion of Vietnam has clouded any judgement of what a fair and just society should look like.
Hyperbolic ad hominem bullshit.
Ashli Babbitt was killed and, there is a killer walking around because Nancy has his back plain and simple. This country will not survive by having no justice for all.
When you have to keep bringing up "I'm a Vietnam veteran" in every single comment, it's clear that you are not making a point of substance but appealing to authority. And if we are really doing that, then Babbitt was also an airforce veteran, served two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq before later deployments with the National Guard to Kuwait and Qatar. She got killed by the very politicans who send kids to foreign lands but don't want to hear anything from their own constituents about election issues and shoot their constituents while hiding under a desk.
> rioters and the looters
The lack of self awareness and reflection from Democrats did and encouraged for past 2 years - from anti kavanaugh protests to riots all year last year (and still ongoing), tells me you are full of shit and don't actually care about any "miscarriage of justice." Admit it - you enjoy political violence and exploiting legal system against your political opponents. You love it.
Thank you for your service. I do know violence and, actions have consequences. What I see is a bunch of old war criminals in power choosing who to prosecute which eventually will open the door for a real white supremacy uprising or a civil war. Unfortunately, the judicial branch is no longer the pillar of our Republic but an arm of the Democratic Party.
glad you weren't one of my troops in SE Asia ......... but, I didn't have any draftees
He wasn’t in Vietnam. You and I both know this.
Oh, weren't you lucky.
Ahh, now maybe I believe. You sounded all salty and combat savvy—“I would have shot her”—“the female VC”.
LoL. I knew you weren’t pulling triggers talking like that.
My dad, uncle and best friend all pulled triggers in VN and don’t speak that way.
Well, thank them for their service for me. There are many stories from Vietnam. Why don't you lighten up on the censorship, and let people tell theirs?
"Yes, she was unarmed. But the officer didn't know that fact." How does this support justification to use deadly force. There may be arguments for justification in this case, but this fact actually contra indicates justification.
Well justified in your country. If this was a civilized country like say Scotland where I live, shooting an unarmed person in the neck or wherever who was storming the Parliament would be considered unjustified and murderous, but hey ho, we live where we live.
You read Glenn’s answer too fast. He doesn’t claim that the shooting was unjustified or justified, either way.
I actually don't fault the Capitol officer who shot her. People don't realize what it is like to be in terror as a situation goes south. But this understanding isn't given to police who more often than not in a questionable shooting were just scared out of their mind.
Considering we don't even know the name of the cop, nor any body cam footage etc clearly tells me this is about politics.
ROFL
So, Nancy, when BLM and/or antifa rioters surge towards police officers you won't have any problem with them shooting and killing the rioters, correct?
This is a straw argument.
The Capitol is just another federal building, like the many set on fire by AntiFA and BLM protestors. $2B in damage from those rioters, and what's the tally from the Capitol riot? Less than $50k? What about all the "handmaids" who barged into Senate Chambers and shut down the Kavanaugh hearings? Should they have all been executed?
The Kavanaugh hearings are a perfect comparison: Partisans stormed the Capitol building in order to prevent Congress from conducting its lawful business. I fail to see how validating the Electoral College tally is somehow more sacred than voting on a Supreme Court nominee.
That most of the Kavanaugh invaders either had their charges dismissed, or had minimal jail time, should be the measure of the Trump invaders.
Laws and Rules don't apply to establishment cronies. The kavanaugh protestors stormed the capitol, senate chambers and was actively encouraged by Democrats.
Unequal treatment under the law and in the press. We shall overcome.
I hope you’re right. Just should be blind.
Architect of the Capitol says > $30 million.
The Dems shut down the hearings.
Another straw argument.
And why would we believe that number? I don’t know, but I do consider the fact that Biden literally kicked off his campaign by repeating the Very Fine People hoax, which is the most easily disproven political lie of all time. So I’m guessing the actual damages were a fraction of that.
I don't know, John.
Nancy, they broke a few windows and smashed a few doors. No fires, no extensive graffiti, no gunfire. 30 million probably included all the ancillary expenses. The actual damage done by the rioters was probably 100-300 thousand. The massive overreaction by the government cost millions, all wasted. Minneapolis alone has had more than a billion in property losses and lost income.
I absolutely love how these establishment cronies value the broken windows of politicians more than burnt down businesses of innocent people (often serving minority communities too).
Not to mention, it's OUR property.
30 million hahahahahahahhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa c'mon man!
Please post the citation for 30 million cost. I’ve not seen that reported anywhere
Do you own stock in straw companies??
The $30M wasn't broken down much in the articles I saw. But it did include the extraordinary security measures taken since Jan 6, including the fencing surrounding the Capitol
Notably, if Speaker Pelosi had accepted President Trump's offer to post National Guard troops around the Capitol on January 6, none of the damage would have happened.
Yeah, again not excusing people breaking windows and trashing stuff, but no where near 30mill. typical hyperbole.
Like the Dems shut down the Kavanaugh hearings. With bullshit.
Bullshit. Be consistent.
They were guarding the Capitol.
They were protecting members of the US Congress.
Not defending themselves.
I asked a question.
Why can't people answer without the snide/nasty remarks?
Guarding the Capitol and protecting members of Congress gives them a special kind of license to kill people who aren't actually threatening anyone's life?
Is that what you're saying?
No, there was a difference in cops being out in force for peaceful protests. The Capitol cops were guarding members of Congress. Some of the rioters who breached the Capitol were chanting Hang Pence, weren't they? Looking for Spkr Pelosi, no?
which members of Congress were within 100 yards of the unarmed woman?
AOC was! She said so and there's no way she could be lying!
You were not asking a question. You characterized my response as a straw argument, to which I substantively responded.
My original post had a question.
Jeff's original question was neither snide nor nasty, and you still reacted with condescension.
No it's not - it's logic 101: Do you believe in the PRINCIPLE, or it is just situational ethics?
Hahahaha this clearly shows you are just a typical nut job who's okay with double standards and hypocrisy.
The cost of repairing damages from the attack on the U.S. Capitol and related security expenses have already topped $30 million and will keep rising, Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton told lawmakers on Wednesday.
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/02/24/970977612/architect-of-the-capitol-outlines-30-million-in-damages-from-pro-trump-riot
As first reported by NPR, J. Brett Blanton, the current Architect of the Capitol, told members of the House Appropriations Committee last week that repair and restoration costs have reached $30 million and will likely soar higher if related security measures are extended beyond the end of this month. This includes maintaining a contentious and meant-to-be-temporary perimeter fence around the Capitol building.
https://www.archpaper.com/2021/03/architect-of-the-capitol-details-millions-in-damage-after-insurrection/
Ah. "Related expenses". Why let a crisis go to waster?
True but he is also right.
No it isn’t. It’s the whole point
Straw man
The biggest problem I have with this is that you act as if defending the capitol and our esteemed Congress people is more important that defending someone's business or home or a police station or a federal building in Portland, etc.. With your logic, since they were defending such special people and special place, (and because the victim was white and conservative - which is most likely the real issue here), they were justified in their shooting of someone who wasn't carrying a firearm. I don't think they were justified. And I also don't think any police officer who shoots an unarmed person is justified, but in all those cases the police offer should have due process. That's our laws.
The differences in recent cases are stark. The Daunte Wright shooting is a perfect example. Here's a guy that was pulled over because he had a warrant for an armed robbery charge. Here's a guy that you, as a police officer would rightfully think could be extremely dangerous. He resists arrest and tries to run away. You don't know if he's ducking into his car to pull a gun or drive away. Officer pulls gun and shoots and obviously, based on her words at the time, made a mistake. Now, she maybe rightfully so, will get convicted of something, but she's due due process. If you listened to the mob of reporters grilling the sheriff they 1) didn't want him to call a riot a riot, and 2) they openly refuted him when he tried to say the officer should be afforded due process.
In the Ashli Babbitt case, no charges are even being brought against the officer that shot her. Shouldn't we at least be doing that? Well, no. Why? Because the victim was white and the insurrectionists deserved all they got. Let's not worry that she was unarmed. She wasn't supposed to be there was she. She supported the wrong person, didn't she. She was threatening important people, not some veteran cop of 25 years.
The treatment the Wright case versus the Babbitt case couldn't be more evidence of the problems in our country. It's ok to kill a white person who's unarmed. It's ok to kill a Trump supporter. It's ok to kill anyone who dares question the legitimacy of the election. In fact, if that happens, we won't even bother investigating the issue, let alone charging someone.
But if a black, accused armed robber, resists arrest, well, the white cop that shot him is immediately tried and convicted in the press.
Just look at Maxine Waters talking about the Chauvin trial. Publicly saying he should be convicted of first degree murder and if he isn't, then let the real rioting (oh sorry, protesting) begin. Again, what happened to due process? What happened to our politicians, whom you hold in such high regard, respecting our laws and processes?
This is all because, for some reason, liberals and the media want a race war. Well, guess what, they're going to get one once the Chauvin result is announced - it won't matter if he's convicted to the fullest extent, or something else, there will be mass rioting and that will be condoned by the left because it fits the narrative that white people owe black people for the sins of the past, and anything done in the name of that is a-ok. And God help you if you question that.
The contrast between Charges in Daunte Wright Shooting, but not Ashli Babbitt (not even knowing the name of the cop who shot her) is a pure example of the two tiered justice system.
Viva Frei and Robert Barnes video on comparisons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHdaHAhw6uE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL6cXPFQuc8
Excellent post. Thank you.
Superb commentary!
No denying Babbitt was climbing through a broken window in a capitol lobby.
The questions for any law enforcement officer in such a situation is, is his or someone else's life threatened, and is the threat imminent?
Nancy, it's child's play for anyone to lay down a stream of fog and spin some kind of tale about how Babbitt's action's constituted an imminent threat. I'm sure if challenged, you have the ability to make up some kind of far-fetched hypothetical.
Imagine instead of Ashley Babbitt, it was your daughter playing a prank with some of her friends, climbing through a broken window. If a cop shot her while she presented no obvious threat, would you think the officer was justified?
Me, I just don't see a real threat, imminent or otherwise.
Is that what you see in the video? A "daughter playing a prank with some of her friends, climbing through a broken window" presenting "no obvious threat"? While in order to claim the actions do constitute an imminent threat would require "some kind of far-fetched hypothetical"?
Taken alone, I do not see a prank.
Had Ms Babbitt been alone, she was not a threat.
On that information, that shot was not justified.
But that is not the whole story.
I think it was a tragedy.
What is really a tragedy is that you think you have critical thinking skills.
The fool who jumps to wrong conclusions at the drop of a hat should not be alleging others don't have critical thinking skills.
Now I am a fool because I claim the DNC is left and you don't?
Is your last name Sulzberger or Goebbels?
It surely seemed imminent. She was climbing through the broken hole. Feet off the ground. The intent was to get through the barriers. Wasn't Jim McGovern there a moment ago? Wish she had climbed down, instead.
Nancy, again, everything you've said is correct. "...climbing through a broken hole... feet off the ground... intent was to get through the barriers..."
Every one of those elements is present whenever there's a riot and a bunch of people break into a Nike store or a Walmart for the five-finger discount.
Nobody is ever shot for doing the things you listed. b/c, though they're breaking the law, they are not threatening other people's life or safety.
Babbitt did not do so either.
Did she?
No, as far as I know, she did not threaten other people. You conveniently omitted the other side of justification.
As best as I can make out from everything you've written, you think a) b/c they were chanting about hanging Pence, and b) b/c they were guarding the Capitol, that makes it OK to shoot to kill.
Do I have that right?
It is not unreasonable for the CP to think people's lives were in danger. Period.
I understand the 1A so don't give me any crap about FREEDOM.
Do you agree there's a double standard that we don't even know the name of the cop who shot her vs every other case which fits the democrat narrative?
Yes.
Wgaf what the Democrats narrative is?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I saw the video several times. Pretty horrifying. There were armed officers standing by...watching. I'd be interested in hearing why they stood back while one officer decided to fire his weapon out of fear. Into her neck.
Yes. Odd they were in arms reach of everyone outside the door and didn't do much to control or deescalate the situation.
Finally some substance to this stupid piling on of M. Nancy.
At this point its so obvious you are a DNC shill its pathetic. You have responded to every comment in this thread with the same DNC party line horseshit.
Go lick Hitlery's boots in your shrine to her.
This is very interesting and utterly wrong.
Mona analyzed this guy correctly a long time ago; garden variety troll.
I do not remember his/her handle.
Yes, we all wish to avoid tragedies like Ms. Babbitt's, so we generally agree she should have "stood down," not climbed through. But if you are going to mention McGovern (did he change his name?), then why not the original Andrew Jackson Populists? Were they justified (for States rights, against Federal Bankin)?
O my.
The very alive Mr McGovern was outside the chamber moments before Ms Babbitt attempted her climb-through.
https://mcgovern.house.gov/
Sorry, wrong McGovern. My bad!
I agree that "being unarmed" does not mean he could not have been in fear of bodily harm. That said - I PROMISE YOU, if I use a firearm in a situation where I am clearly in fear of great bodily harm . . . my local prosecutor would arrest and charge me, and some piece of shit ambulance chasing lawyer would file a wrongful death suit before I made bail.
The issue is equality of treatment.
I have an insurance policy (not a metaphor) for this exact situation. I consider it money well spent. If you justifiably use a firearm, odds are that the process will be the punishment and it will be severe.
Yes. Anyone who has a CCP should have legal insurance.
(At first I read CCP as Chinese Communist Party. Boy does THAT insurance get pricey!)
As that St. Louis couple found out, just frightening the criminals off by standing there with guns can get *you* charged.
In numerous cases in Canada, this is exactly what happened. Criminals with a long history of violence break into your home, you shoot them, and get charged with excessive violence.
Y'all do realize that deadly force is only justified under law in response to the treat of deadly force or the threat of great bodily injury? Do you really want the police to shoot people outside those circumstances? There cant be one rule for someone you disfavor, and another for those you favor, for cryin' out loud.
Please.
The guiding principle of the entire leadership of the Democratic Party and their American Izvestia propagandists is "rules for thee, not for me".
Some animals are more equal than others.
So you’re saying the only way for a team of cops to stop a fat middle aged woman squeezing through a window opening is a bullet in the brain? Seriously?
Sure, she's clearly dangerous. Not like those innocent fellows resisting arrest while evading weapons charges.
Yeah, has there been 1 (one) black killed by "killer" police who was cooperating?
Cops have killed kids for playing in a playground with water guns. Definitely not defending trigger-happy police.
Agreed. Those are tragedies, but a different category altogether, imo.
Well, maybe that kid today?
"...a single shot from his firearm, which struck her in the left shoulder..."
Really?! The woman was fatally shot. So your going to quibble over where the bullet entered her body?
People here are too loose with their language.
I strive for accuracy.
Is that such a bad habit?
You aren't accurate. She was shot in the neck:
https://archive.is/g7Q7X
I tried to find a non-left wing MSM publication. Will avoid the biased rags next time. https://www.theblaze.com/news/doj-not-charges-officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt
No, except you're just quibbling. Arguing for arguments sake is worthless.
you havent said anything accurate this whole forum gtfo
Yeah, this forum is ONLY for those that agree with M. Iconoclast.
She was shot in the neck:
https://archive.is/g7Q7X
Did you see the full video of this? There are cops behind her walking down the steps and away from the area...not but a few feet away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In_3TjMKRNc
Why do you ask?
I am not signing in to watch a YT video.
What did I get wrong?
Everything.
Yeah.
I just read it was a false flag operation and she is still alive.
I'm sure her family wishes she was still alive. Do yourself a favor and take 2 minutes to open and watch the video.
Watch this video...the whole thing was a FF. It will never be reported but it was set up to confiscate Congress’ laptops. Truth will eventually come out.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DYlb92zMkj41/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/proud-boys-leader-was-undercover-informant-for-law-enforcement-report/ar-BB1d8XgQ
False flag even the media on the left admits was government led.
She is.
Yes she was trespassing and part of a group breaking into the Capitol. But it looked like all she was doing was using her small frame to get through a smashed out door panel. She was shot before she made it. Other demonstrators actually got into the building or were pulled in and neutralized without being killed. I consider her death a tragedy and an unnecessary overuse of force. What also bothered me was the lack of apparent concern on the part of other demonstrators when she collapsed. Perhaps I didn’t see that footage but what I saw did not show anyone caring about her after her usefulness in getting through that door panel didn’t work out.
One of the men who broke the window scampered down the stairs, opened his backpack, changed his shirt, and then took off. Calm, cool, and collected.
Your use of *group*, *demonstrators* is adorable.
What happened to the peaceful protesting Nancy? And what were you saying when Democrats not just stormed the capitol and senate during anti-kavanaugh protests, they were actively encouraged by Pelosi's and AOC etc.
look its the TDS poster thing
There were both demonstrators and insurrectionists. Unlike the apologists for insurrection, those who cowardly pretend that they were doing nothing wrong when they know that they were trying to “stop the steal”, the insurrectionists themselves knew exactly what they were doing. What concerns me is what would have happened had the intention been to use weapons to achieve the objective of stopping the electoral process. There would have been a massacre. Those of you apologizing for this should be aware of what could happen the next time and stop minimizing this event. 9/11
Astute observation.
It’s what being on the left is all about now, they can’t function without hypocrisy. That they do it without the slightest hint of irony on their part is the amazing part.
Please go to DuckDuckGo and search for images of:
"anti kavanaugh protests capitol"
"anti kavanaugh protests senate"
"anti kavanaugh protests Supreme Court"
"anti kavanaugh protests storm"
And let me know what was different.
Attention: "Nancy" is a (possibly paid) troll -- active only to distract readers from the hugely important topic. Pls just ignore her - thank you
Often arguing with trolls isn't done to convince and change the mind of troll (if she really is a troll). It's done to convince the audience reading the comments / watching the debate that why my argument is worth more than the troll's. Gotta remember - there are still a lot of oblivious people reading comments and you might be able to change their minds.
Well put. Nancy is opinionated and taciturn, but the thinness of her veneer of knowledge has been nicely exposed by the respondents here.
Just a paid subscriber with many differing views and some similar ones.
But please ignore me.
Thank you.
Without warning? He didn’t allow her to put up her hands or back away or to even know he was there. You think that is the correct procedure. When someone tries to enter a courthouse or any government property without permission, you think the cops have a mandate to just start shooting without trying to verbally warn anyone and give them a chance to correct their actions? Really? Every cop has that right?
As is so often the anthemic battle cry of the left and the blm, does her raucous behavior mean she deserved to die?
She did not deserve to die.
Your NAZI is showing if you advocate shooting trespassers on public property.
You MAY be a Nazi if....
She and the group were accompanied by 2 security officers in the stairwell at the time she was shot. The video is widely available, no need to remember.
The heck's wrong with "stop or I'll shoot" like normal cops do? She didn't know the cop was lurking in the recess to the left behind the door. "Well, she shouldn't have been there in there in the first place!" True, but by that logic scores of federal building rioters and looters last summer should have all been shot by by the guards. Murder, not self-defense, is what this was. It's fine when woke people do it yet murder for everybody else. So tired of the double standards!
Of all the lies the media has told for the last five years and there are certainly many, this could very well be the worst.
IMHO, the worst and most detrimental to the country was the fine people hoax. But this is certainly way up there as well.
"Fine people on both sides" was so bad Banjo Boy used it on campaign 3 years later.
I think the Russian bounty and Russiagate was the worst as that's putting 2 nuclear nations against each other.
So many choices . . .
Many options for the next diversion.
Me thinks we have mentally ill people masquerading as journalists. There is no way a normally functioning human could behave in the way. This is the final straw for me. I am cancelling cable so I don't fund this shit.
My observation is they're suffering from arrested adolescence rather than any actual neuroses.