Another prominent Proud Boys Telegram channel is âProud Boys: Uncensored,â which is reportedly being operated by the leader of the New Hampshire chapter of the Proud Boys, Todd M. Clark. The fascism-promoting channel has continued to incite violence in the wake of the attack on the Capitol, claiming that âthe difference between a patriot and a rebel depends on who wins the war.â
The channel also encouraged its followers to target politicians. It posted a clip of Sen. Lindsey Graham being harassed by an angry mob of Trump supporters at the airport with the caption, âTheyâre no longer safe in public ⦠Never let these system agents known a moment of peace.â
Shortly thereafter, the âProud Boys: Uncensoredâ channel polled its followers on whether or not they wanted âtotal war.â More than 10,500 people voted in the poll, 75 percent of whom voted âyes.â
State Capitols âon High Alert,â Fearing More Violence Officials around the country are bracing for any spillover from last weekâs violent assault on the U.S. Capitol. State legislatures already have become targets for protesters in recent days.
Before Capitol Riot, Republican Lawmakers Fanned the Flames A â1776 momentâ: Several of the presidentâs closest allies in Congress used bellicose language to urge their supporters to attend the Jan. 6 rally that turned into a deadly riot.
For his part, Mr. Brooks has remained unapologetic about his role in encouraging the rioters.
âI make no apology for doing my absolute best to inspire patriotic Americans to not give up on our country and to fight back against anti-Christian socialists in the 2022 and 2024 elections,â Mr. Brooks told a local newspaper. âI encourage EVERY citizen to watch my entire rally speech and decide for themselves what kind of America they want: One based on freedom and liberty or one based on godless dictatorial power.â
+ North Korea has no pretence of invading and colonizing the USA. Moreover, it is simply not technically feasible.
+ Righteous isolation of North Korea has not worked; it has been a big fail. Perhaps constructive engagement with North Korea will work. Or have most North Americans given up on the power of freer markets and trade?
+ The future blueprints of American foreign policy should not consist of knee-jerks responses to Trump administration policies and style.
Trump, of course, but he's always seemed to have someone else pulling his strings. Can we think of a foreign power who would love to see the nation/government disrupted so severely? Attacking the Capitol building using Americans to do it? GENIUS!
Because Americans, or their leader, couldn't/wouldn't willingly launch an insurrection without foreign instigators?
Did anyone check Kim Jong-un's love letters?
I'm sure you'll post a link to a news article about it some/everywhere.
Trump, of course, but he's always seemed to have someone else pulling his strings. Can we think of a foreign power who would love to see the nation/government disrupted so severely? Attacking the Capitol building using Americans to do it? GENIUS!
Because Americans, or their leader, couldn't/wouldn't willingly launch an insurrection without foreign instigators?
They certainly didn't join the mob. I blame their leadership for leaving them in that position before I blame them for not facing off with a mob armed only with sticks.
That is my interpretation too. In these kinds of situations, it is usually mid- and senior-level officers who screw up.
But they had absolutely no warning that a million hostile people were coming to protest...
I know you're being facetious, but it's worth noting that the government supposedly has fantastic intel, and would've known a mile away that this was about to happen. And they didn't defend against the seditionists that were trying to keep Trump in power by force.
There's really no other way to see that except that the Capitol was, by design, left undefended. And, like any crime, you have to look at "who benefits?" "who had opportunity?" Who would want the Congress, on the cusp of certifying that there will be a peaceful change of power/leadership in America, to be attacked and disrupted?
Trump, of course, but he's always seemed to have someone else pulling his strings. Can we think of a foreign power who would love to see the nation/government disrupted so severely? Attacking the Capitol building using Americans to do it? GENIUS!
But they had absolutely no warning that a million hostile people were coming to protest and so there was no time or inkling to prepare in a city that usually has locked down security especially of the Capitol and the White House clearly demonstrated when BLM protest were taking place. And then there is the video of them opening the gates and doors to let them in whilst guiding them as a tour guide on where to go. It is almost like they wanted this to happen......or something.
Can you spell out your conspiracy theory a little more clearly?
1. What do you think happened? 2. Who did it? 3. To what end?
The list which makes it a mob and insurrection as opposed to protest:
1. It Attempted to Overthrow a Democratic Process
2. It Threatened Physical Harm to Others
And this one is quite rich:
3. People Destroyed Symbols of Democracy
Most kids understand that stealing is wrong. With that in mind, taking items with strong ties to our nation's history is much more extreme than petty theft.
"In our government, symbols matter,"
It is blatant hypocrisy such as this that will continue to divide us as the only people that will be uniquely horrified at what happened last week are the same that defended the destruction of this past summer. There is no shock and awe here, sorry.
I sort of agree here. But a (warranted/needed) shift to more restraint doesn't explain selfies with intruders. There is a systemic problem of treating groups differently that needs to be addressed. If police forces aren't seen as neutral, it's going to be hard to get buy in from both sides to accept their enforcement.
Before I attribute this to collaboration I'd look a little closer.
They stood down faced with a huge, violent mob. There really wasn't anything they could do but stand there and watch them go by. I've seen videos of rioters taking selfies with cops and the cops look more dazed than complicit.
They certainly didn't join the mob. I blame their leadership for leaving them in that position before I blame them for not facing off with a mob armed only with sticks.
But they had absolutely no warning that a million hostile people were coming to protest and so there was no time or inkling to prepare in a city that usually has locked down security especially of the Capitol and the White House clearly demonstrated when BLM protest were taking place. And then there is the video of them opening the gates and doors to let them in whilst guiding them as a tour guide on where to go. It is almost like they wanted this to happen......or something.
obviously i felt the scales were a little uneven to post my question. not to go into it again (referring to my points last week), but comparing either the violence or the reaction is not necessary, and only detracts from what happened. Let it stand on its own, and be condemned on its own.
I really don't agree. There is an intertwined set of problems here. We hold elections to get leadership to address the things we want as a society. One set of people are aggrieved and don't feel they have equal representation. The other side wants to hold the status quo at all costs. We can have differing opinions of the validity of each, but there is a lot of history and evidence. Your continued insistence to look only at one piece at a time ignores this.
I get the point, but still hold it detracts from the argument, while also fostering a divisive environment. it gives the "other side" fodder to counter...what about the riots over the summer that many democrats and much of the media glossed over? focus on what happened last week, and together as a nation condemn it. AND, focus on the inequity that still exists in this country, and together condemn it.
I sort of agree here. But a (warranted/needed) shift to more restraint doesn't explain selfies with intruders. There is a systemic problem of treating groups differently that needs to be addressed. If police forces aren't seen as neutral, it's going to be hard to get buy in from both sides to accept their enforcement.
Before I attribute this to collaboration I'd look a little closer.
They stood down faced with a huge, violent mob. There really wasn't anything they could do but stand there and watch them go by. I've seen videos of rioters taking selfies with cops and the cops look more dazed than complicit.
They certainly didn't join the mob. I blame their leadership for leaving them in that position before I blame them for not facing off with a mob armed only with sticks.
obviously i felt the scales were a little uneven to post my question. not to go into it again (referring to my points last week), but comparing either the violence or the reaction is not necessary, and only detracts from what happened. Let it stand on its own, and be condemned on its own.
I really don't agree. There is an intertwined set of problems here. We hold elections to get leadership to address the things we want as a society. One set of people are aggrieved and don't feel they have equal representation. The other side wants to hold the status quo at all costs. We can have differing opinions of the validity of each, but there is a lot of history and evidence. Your continued insistence to look only at one piece at a time ignores this.
