Man Armed With Assault Rifle Texted Plans To Shoot Nancy Pelosi, Officials Say

Georgia man texted people his intentions to shoot House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “on live TV” while making his way to the nation’s capital with an assault rifle for Wednesday’s pro-Trump rally, authorities said.

The dark side thereof is now on display. — jorndoe

What is on display is just how the American political system is descending into Weimar style politics as both extremes of the American political spectrum have at last found the street as the perfect place for their extra-parliamentary activity. After Trump's incitement to walk on Capitol Hill to show strength, the loonies will be just more emboldened and more confident that they were right in their claims that the ruling elite is there to get them.

After this comes likely the real terrorist groups like Europe had in the 1970's and 80's or the "lone nut" activists, who know the best way to be successful is to keep it all in your head.

And here is Hippyhead. Asked a civil question, he lied in answering. On being called on it, you see his evasion above. His just a barely polite, "F*** you!" And no reason for it.

Being myself pretty good with words in an amateur sort of way, I can be clearer. Fuck you, Hippyhead. You're revealed as a liar and a troll. All others take note, for what it's worth. — tim wood

And he wonders why I'm not eager to give him the attention he is demanding.

That's what I don't get. — Kenosha Kid

Are you trying to understand Trump voters? Or is most of your effort going in to rejecting them? This isn't a challenge or complaint of any kind. Just reaching for whatever further clarity can be found.

I brought up Sanders just to demonstrate that it can be reasonable to consider radical change in some circumstances. It can be reasonable to 1) consider radical change in general, and then 2) unreasonable to choose a particular form of radical change.

If it is true that radical change to the American political system is required, then Sanders and Trump voters may have some level of rational agreement. They may largely agree on item #1 above, but obviously not item #2.

To the degree the above is true, the situation may not be as 100% polarized as is currently being portrayed in the public conversation. There may be some degree of unexplored meeting ground available.

I think you're right in regards to Weimar. There is an eerie similarity between the treatment of those involved in the protest and those involved in the Reichstag fire. It makes me wonder if Democrats and their GOP enablers are using the "insurrection" conspiracy theory as a pretext to remove civil liberties, particularly against their political opponents.

Now Trump has been censored on all social media platforms for arbitrary and dubious reasons such as "incitement to violence", even though he has for years condemned violence and vandalism, including those who rioted in his name. He's probably going to be impeached for the same dubious reasons.

:clap:

It feels more vindictive than cautionary to me, and a really bad idea considering how beat Trump was and the potential backfire. — praxis

Republicans and social media had years to take a stand on Trump. Waiting until the very end like this is clearly opportunistic. On the other hand, given what happened Wednesday, these measures aren't entirely unjustified.

I myself think it's a good move. Too little too late, but a start. We shouldn't have to live our lives worried about the reaction of the political right. When both sides keep moving to extremes, and one side goes beyond the pale, then eventually it has to come to blows. You have to pick a side. They WANT a civil war. What are we to do if people are beyond reason? Keep allowing them to push us back farther and farther?

If that's the case, then let's just give Trump another 4 years. Because that's what's being demanded, and that's what his base believes. Let's allow them to storm the capitol building, the White House, etc., with little resistance and a slap on the wrist afterward. Let's allow them to threaten the lives of people and organize militias on private online forums, violating the TOS of each one. We don't want to piss them off, after all.

Give me a break. Pick a side.

In the recent Democratic primary Andrew Yang seemed to be the only person who actually understood the historical forces generating social instability, and the only person with a bold plan for addressing that instability. — Hippyhead

Yang is fine. I would have liked to see him get more traction. But Sanders' message was far better, in my view.

People are being censored by giant monopolies for specious reasons, and oddly enough, some of these monopolies have former executives and lobbyists within the opposing party. Of course people can go elsewhere, but “elsewhere” is becoming increasingly narrow. — NOS4A2

Tough shit.

"Specious reasons" means exactly nothing coming from someone who believes the election was stolen.

I am zero upset that our internet masters have decided not to allow their platforms to be used to promote terrorism.

Tough shit.

"Specious reasons" means exactly nothing coming from someone who believes the election was stolen.

I never said I believe the election was stolen. But you should be embarrassed that you need Silicon Valley soy-boys to curate information for you.

I never said I believe the election was stolen. But you should be embarrassed that you need Silicon Valley soy-boys to curate information for you. — NOS4A2

A Trump supporter telling someone to be embarrassed. :rofl:

Both "curating" and "information" are incorrect. Neither apply.

I am zero upset that our internet masters have decided not to allow their platforms to be used to promote terrorism. — Baden

Exactly. Let the neo-Nazis make their own platform. They're free to do so. They're not entitled to an op-ed in the WSJ, nor the algorithms of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Believe it or not, free speech is indeed limited. I fully support their right to march, to assemble, and to free speech in other capacities. The crazy drunk yelling slogans in the park likewise is not violating any laws. But likewise he isn't entitled to do so on private platforms.

You don't like it? Don't sign their terms of service agreement. We'd all be better of not being on there anyway.

In my opinion, this is beyond the pale...

As for Trump, maybe banning him from twitter won't help to legitimize the 'radical left authoritarianism' fear that they've been promoting.

My message for Trump terrorists and their supporters, including on this site, is simple: Fuck off and die. I make no apologies for that and never will. Neither should FB, Twitter, Amazon, or anyone else.

Fuck off and die. — Baden

Well I guess it’s all over for the forum then if this is how the administrator behaves.

Orwellian? It couldn't be more capitalistic for a publisher to not want to be associated with sedition. What a whinny bitch.

No, it's not only acceptable imo but obligatory to shut down terrorists. We don't need to be polite to them. Why on earth would you disagree with that? Anyway, until and unless you condemn what you earlier supported, you have zero moral ground concerning anything.

Like, it's OK for Trump supporters to try to kill lawmakers and for you to celebrate that, but I'm the badly behaved one. Utterly deluded.

Show me posts where I supported terrorists.

Who's side are you on? — frank

Obviously the people. These people shook up the system. I don’t have to like them to see that — Brett

Taken out of context. And that’s not support anyway.

Irish foreign minister calls out human shitstain.

Minister for Foreign Affairs, Simon Coveney: "We must call this out for what it is: a deliberate assault on democracy by a sitting President and his supporters, attempting to overturn a free and fair election."
— Baden

The one thing all politicians fear: the people asserting themselvesThey all have that fear and they all know their lines. — Brett

Still not support. Come on, you can do better than this.

It's not support that you said you were "on the side" of the people who "asserted themselves" at the capitol?

on the side" — Baden

What’s that from?

What? I just posted your answer to Frank above.

You’re playing games.

I'm quoting your words as you asked me to. Look, I'm done, @Brett. If I'm wrong about your position, I challenge you to condemn the Trump terrorists who attacked the capitol now. If you won't, the obvious interpretation of your posts is the correct one.