Quantcast
  • We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

Invasion of US Capitol building

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
I think, haven't checked, that there were thousands of BLM arrests. Also, 10 killed by police in Chicago in 3 days wasn't it?



I think as it comes out we will find some of them were seriously hunting people.
14,000 blm arrests over a group estimated to be 15MM to 25MM in terms of number of protesters. About 1 in 1500 protesters got arrested.

How does that compare with last weekend. The group was permitted between 5 and 30k, and there are at least 125 arrests so far (probably more). At least 6 times the arrest rate and they're just getting started.

As far as "some were hunting people", there were a few who left rotten messages on social media. It appears that they were known about before they got there and they were arrested. I'd bet they didn't get far. Most of the group was unarmed and misguided enough to think they were protesting election integrity.

The next day, Mike Pence protected the election integrity and showed them what being a "patriot" means (I'm not a fan of labels, but would rather say "showed them what learning of the facts and doing the right thing looks like").

If some part of a group of between 5 and 30k people went "hunting" for someone, there would've been some outcome that occurred. I don't believe it was more than fantasy to them, and then reality turned out more sour than they expected.
 

mikej460

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2019
Messages
230
Reaction score
134
Location
Daventry
The BLM vs. Capitol riots were so very different to my (ok foreign) eyes. Trump and his cronies forced the police response to the BLM protests in Washington because he is racist; the Capitol riot police response was so ill prepared, despite the FBI warnings, as to be totally inept. That said both sides had their bad actors, thugs who mingled with the protestors and stirred them on. I watched this last night Storming the Capitol: The Inside Story - Storming the Capitol: The Inside Story - ITV Hub
I'm not sure if D_W will be able to view it, but it is a UK TV channel's on the ground report of the Capitol riot and makes fascinating viewing. I was go-smacked by the interviews with seemingly ordinary, intelligent people at the riot who were genuinely convinced the election was a fraud (although there were some who were just dangerously bonkers).

As for the attempts to impeach Trump, I think the Democrats need to get rid of him politically if they are to move forward to repair the damage Trump has done to the US. He is a dangerous man with mind-boggling control over a large number of people who follow him like lemmings. I also suspect that there is a right wing faction who are just using him to further their own extremist ends.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
I don't have time to watch the special right now (not sure if I can view it), but thank you for the comment in the middle of your assessment, because it matches my thoughts about the group

>> interviews with seemingly ordinary, intelligent people at the riot who were genuinely convinced the election was a fraud <<

That's my assessment and that's why I think this movement has no long-term teeth. I do what I can when someone brings it up to question what they believe. My father thinks the election was stolen because it corresponds to vote fraud from eons ago in chicago that he remembers occurring. I think he's convinced now because I've run through likelihoods. If there are supposedly 30 provable events of large scale fraud, can you tell me that not a single prosecutor and judge in a conservative district would pick one up? That is *extremely unlikely*. Like perhaps one in 100,000 chance events, but who really knows. We don't make movements in life based on chances like that - it's stupidity.

But the average person doesn't understand likelihood and speaks in definites instead. This Zilch-Wedlock me off as my job is dealing with probabilities and data that isn't pure and clean. You can sniff out what ifs with bad data to see if it really matters and get an idea of what's likely or not.

At any rate, because the majority of the group, in my opinion, believes that there's actually an election stolen, they will eventually see enough reality to realize that it wasn't, and it'll die.

The *vast* majority that I've talked to would have no interest in actually toppling the system - they think they're protecting it and they have a hitch in their giddy-up as soon as you get them to realize they may be wrong.

The actual dangerous nutballs in the group who have been sniffed out and arrested, I have to say I'm pretty pleased with that. When they post what they posted on facebook, etc, and then show up with illegal or improvised weapons, they're going away. No more wondering.
 

TRITON

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
279
Reaction score
147
Location
Scotland
Also keep in mind that the 'Mob' is actually an entity in its own right. The 'Mob' can act by it's own, and the people in it are mostly powerless to act against it's actions. They are in fact carried along, and later felt they had no control over their actions.

One could put in the suggestion that with an understanding of crowd behaviour, the lack of dissenting voices contributed to the scenes we witnessed, blame therefore could be leveled against the Republican party, or even the police force, in that knowing how the crowd might act, they stood back and allowed it to continue.
This plays in to the notion of the mob being driven to attempt to overthrow the elected Biden government, and given the Biden government is one of socialist policy, it suggests strongly that the authoritarian aspects of a country's make up are directly responsible for the attack on the Capitol building. ie The police and the military.

This is of course just idle speculation, but lets not forget intellect.
Let's also not forget the assassination of JFK. Another socialist*.

* Socialism is not Communism, nor is it Marxism. Many appear not to know the difference. But to put it in its simplest format -
Marxism - Everybody has to die for the ideology.
Communism - Everyone has to die for the party.
Socialism - Nobody has to die, and everyone gets a better standard of living.
 
Last edited:

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
quote today, national guard upped to 20k now. I'd like to say I called this ahead of time- wait, I did - it's in this post.

(interesting text replacement above - Zilch wedlock?)
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
Also keep in mind that the 'Mob' is actually an entity in its own right. The 'Mob' can act by it's own, and the people in it are mostly powerless to act against it's actions. They are in fact carried along, and later felt they had no control over their actions.

One could put in the suggestion that with an understanding of crowd behaviour, the lack of dissenting voices contributed to the scenes we witnessed, blame therefore could be leveled against the Republican party, or even the police force, in that knowing how the crowd might act, they stood back and allowed it to continue.
This plays in to the notion of the mob being driven to attempt to overthrow the elected Biden government, and given the Biden government is one socialist policy, it suggests strongly that the authoritarian aspects of a country's make up are directly responsible for the attack on the Capitol building. ie The police and the military.

This is of course just idle speculation, but lets not forget intellect.
The conservative portions of the government here aren't particularly fascist and never have been. Biden is a moderate, and most people know it (which is how he got the nomination). As far as the mob not being able to move independently, apparently when the woman got shot in one wing, most of the people didn't mindlessly continue on, they followed the police out in an orderly way.

The history of the conservative party here has been to allow more rights and more individualism, not less or not more mandatory things - with one exception - the older right was obsessed with legislating morality and a puritanist kind of attitude. The far left side of the democratic party has been interested in limiting free speech or forcing certain types of speech by accommodation, but they are a tiny fraction of the fringe. There's no real bulk reason to fear loss of freedom here or imposition of anything by any minority.
 

Jacob

Pint of bass, porkpie, and packet of crisps please
Joined
7 Jul 2010
Messages
16,728
Reaction score
255
Location
Derbyshire
..... all get the same standard of living?
No it would be impossible.
More a constant process of cheques and balances in a constantly changing scenario. Pretty much how all modern states work anyway, but freer of free market ideology and doing more of what is simply necessary - such as providing homes for the homeless, one of the many things the free market can't do
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
Socialism - Nobody has to die, and everyone gets a better standard of living.
There may be one country that has a socialist economy that has a higher per capita GDP and higher average standard of living, and If I'm guessing right, it's because the economy is supported by oil sales.

Generally, socialism results in lower output, a lower standard of living and greater uniformity.

At best, median standard of living may be even, lower class would be higher or at least more secure, and anything above that is lower. The trouble with believing that will last in the long term is that it doesn't account for the fact that the highest producers will establish themselves somewhere that's rewarding to them.


That chart is median income (average income is more skewed in favor of the states, we obviously have more income disparity). It also doesn't account for taxes (if you have health care through an employer, in the US, it's far cheaper to live here due to the lower tax burden).

But you take more risks here because the safety net is at the poverty level, not at the 33rd percentile or some other more comfortable level.

It drives me up a wall a little when we hear (we here it here, too) that with socialism, everyone gains. All it ignores is reality.
 

mikej460

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2019
Messages
230
Reaction score
134
Location
Daventry
I think the very term puts people off, like communism it has a history and is regarded as an old, unrealistic theory used by politicians to deride attempts to focus on the impoverished. Whereas what you suggest (and I totally agree with) is a fairer economic system that prevents such things as homelessness; however I feel this shouldn't be at the expense of a free market as that is what generates economic wealth to achieve what should be done.
 

harryc

Established Member
Joined
27 Apr 2007
Messages
303
Reaction score
25
@oliverdarcy
While Fox hosts have uttered the words "protest that got out of hand" in last hour, CNN reports via law enforcement official that evidence uncovered so far suggests level of planning that has led investigators to believe attack was not just a protest that spiraled out of control.

No doubt our American friend D_W will still protest it was just a couple of nut jobs!
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
I think the very term puts people off, like communism it has a history and is regarded as an old, unrealistic theory used by politicians to deride attempts to focus on the impoverished. Whereas what you suggest (and I totally agree with) is a fairer economic system that prevents such things as homelessness; however I feel this shouldn't be at the expense of a free market as that is what generates economic wealth to achieve what should be done.
It puts people off here, but it's not a new thing. Our papers in the early 1900s were inundated with talk about implementing socialism. If we began to say that we don't have it, it would be very misleading. I just googled the total for medicare, medicaid, disability, social security - about 2.5 trillion per year.

That doesn't cover unemployment, child assistance, any state or local programs, housing assistance, food stamps. etc. It's probably 3-4 trillion a year.

We have a highly progressive tax system at the federal level, as do a lot of state and local governments.

It's just administered in a lot of parts and the non-federal benefits differ by state in some cases.

Our social spending is probably greater than the GDP of all but four countries (including us). I guess we're socialists.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
@oliverdarcy
While Fox hosts have uttered the words "protest that got out of hand" in last hour, CNN reports via law enforcement official that evidence uncovered so far suggests level of planning that has led investigators to believe attack was not just a protest that spiraled out of control.

No doubt our American friend D_W will still protest it was just a couple of nut jobs!
You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience.

Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?

Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?

I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from.

I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.
 

harryc

Established Member
Joined
27 Apr 2007
Messages
303
Reaction score
25
You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience.

Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?

Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?

I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from.

I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.
You're searching for something to support a conclusion. That the whole group or near the whole was intent on overturning an election that they know they lost. you quote fox who says protest out of hand (duh?) and CNN, who has a political interest in exaggerating the intent of the overall group to stir up their audience.

Do you think fox news ever exaggerates something liberals do to stir up their audience?

Do you really think a giant attack would lead to everyone walking back out of the building a couple of hours later?

I'd imagine if there are 30k people in the group and they can find 50 people for you who are bonkers and want to overturn the government, you'll rest your conclusion on the 50 you can see interviews from.

I discount what you're doing because it's simple - you have something you want to find and you're looking for it. I'm willing to wait to see what happens going forward rather than making accusations. I can only go from the experience I have with people who think the election was "stolen". They're not looking to overturn the government, they think they're going to scare evidence of fraud out of someone. They'll realize they're wrong. If it doesn't fit what you're hoping, I can't really make you feel better.
You come across as the typical American we view over here, dogmatic in his/her views unwilling to see what is in front of your eyes.
But that’s your perogative as you clearly want to see events in your ideology but that’s like a lot of people, its human instinct.

You won’t accept your official reports telling you of pipe bombs brought to the Capitol, hell loads of reports of Republican Congress people showing extremists around Congress just a couple of days before the attack.

What were all those nutters planning on doing with zip ties if not to take hostages?

Might be embarrassing for you to see the outside world looking at your Country as a banana republic but maybe a period of introspection is exactly what’s needed by the so called silent majority to send the neandenthrals back to the caves who came out after Obama got elected.
 

D_W

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2015
Messages
5,214
Reaction score
296
Location
PA, US
you're drawing a conclusion and I'm waiting for information. You think that someone is going to take over the government and I don't. I personally think you have bad judgement if you actually think you're likely to be correct. It's that simple.

As far as embarrassment, you may have noticed that we (most americans) don't really run around worrying about appearances. I think that's kind of man pursey, actually, but we're aware that there's a fairly large group of people in other countries who have a chip on their shoulder about the state and always hope for the news to be as bad as possible.

I think we have a disinformation problem that'll be solved as reality sinks in to the bulk of the misinformed. I actually live here, you watch the news channels. Your quotes above sort of clarify reality - a protest that got out of hand (yes), and a news channel that offered that it was going from objective news to a slant, but they put a shiny hook in the water and you're on it.

You've singled out a couple of doofuses -doofus one brought pipe bombs but didn't use them. Doofus 2 brought zip ties, but didn't use them. Let's assume they were actually nuts and did use them (it's a bit odd that if they'd have intended to, neither did - in fact, nobody used anything but a fire extinguisher and things they could grab). Are you really that dense that here in the states where about half of the households have guns that these folks went to the capitol unarmed and decided
1) we're staging a coup
2) we're going to do it unarmed, because if we're armed, we hear it's a felony to do an armed coup

It's inconvenient for you, maybe, if you're hoping for the worst that sanity is the most likely thing to prevail. People who speculate and hope for the worst, I don't know, I really don't get it. To me, it signals something not that great.
 

Lefley

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2020
Messages
16
Reaction score
6
Location
Canada
At every turn the Democrat party seems intent on creating more friction, more anger, and more divisiveness. Did the left wing protestors who crashed the Kavanough hearings get charged with sedition? Did they get charged with anything at all?

If I had just won won an election, I would be going out of my way to try and build bridges, pour oil on troubled waters and generally calm things down. What I wouldn't be doing is persecuting the opposition in every way possible, unnecessarily impeaching the failed leader, threatening pogroms and "Truth and Reconcilliation" education camps etc. In other words, burning bridges, pouring oil on the fire, and inciting as much violence as possible.

Trump is insane, therefore Trump supporters are insane, therefore....?

Is that really a good way to fix all this chaos?
But they want to impeach him, so they can then stop him from ever again holding an elected office. That is there end game.
 

Chris70

Established Member
Joined
16 Mar 2019
Messages
43
Reaction score
14
Location
Semley
I think you're revealing a bit about your social milieu ! :D
Err, which of these do you mean?

AcronymDefinition
LBDLittle Black Dress
LBDLearning by Doing
LBDLigand Binding Domain
LBDLewy Body Dementia (aka Lewy Body Disease)
LBDLarge Block Device
LBDLogical Block Device
LBDLow Battery Detector (electronics)
LBD
LBDLibrary Book Discussion (teenagers)
LBDLondon Beth Din
LBDLong Block Data (computing standard; International Disk Drive Equipment and Materials Association)
LBDLittle Black Duck
LBDLaser Beam Detector
LBDLittle Brothers' Disease (band)
LBDLost Bather Drill (Life guarding)
LBDLocal Bills Discounted
LBDLaser Beam Defocus (mechanism)
LBDTwin-Engine McDonnell, Navy Special Plane (US Navy)
Copyright 1988-2018 AcronymFinder.com, All rights reserved.

Suggest new definition
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top