Re: NBC Historian Takes Media's "Bloodbath" Insanity To A Whole New Level

On 2024-03-20 02:46:53 +0000, BTR1701 said:

super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:

On 2024-03-20 00:01:05 +0000, BTR1701 said:
 

In article <utd5p0$1371j$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
 

On 2024-03-19 22:01:11 +0000, BTR1701 said:
 

In article <utctt9$11hfm$1@dont-email.me>,
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
 

On 2024-03-19 18:25:47 +0000, BTR1701 said:
 

On Mar 19, 2024 at 9:24:24 AM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com>
wrote:
 

On Tue, 19 Mar 2024 04:30:48 -0400
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
 

NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss took the media
furor over former President Donald Trump’s "bloodbath" comments to
new heights during a Monday appearance on MSNBC's MORNING JOE.
 During an Ohio campaign rally over the weekend, Trump predicted a
"bloodbath" if he does not win reelection in 2024, and media outlets
fell all over themselves trying to make it look as though he was
predicting politically motivated violence and a *literal* bloodbath.

 And yet there's a Democrat state senator in Tennessee outright calling
for riots and political violence right now because she didn't get her
way in a vote and... yes, you guessed it, crickets from the legacy
media.

 Maybe because she isn't powerful enough to inspire upwards of 80,000
followers to attempt a violent insurrection in Washington or even
Nashville.

 So we have to wait until there's dead bodies in the street and downtown
Nashville is on fire before reporting on a state official calling for
riots and violence?
 That's what you're going with?

 I couldn't google the specific example of a "Democrat state senator in
Tennessee outright calling for riots and political violence right now
because she didn't get her way in a vote"

 Just check out the thread posted right here in RAT today entitled,
"Civility Project Ends".
 

but the Republican jerks in charge have passed some pretty outrageous
laws in the past few weeks, like repealing an anti-"arrested for driving
while Black" law

 Otherwise known as an "exempting black people from the traffic code
everyone else has to obey" law.

 The law (or repealed law now) applies to everyone.
 If your state has this policy maybe you'll appreciate getting pulled
over in your beaten up 40-year-old pickup without a license plate light
because some cop makes the subjective judgement that you look
suspicious.

 If I'm driving around without a license plate light, then there's nothing
subjective about it. I'm violating the law.

 

You do realize that's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment, right? Or do you just not care?

 It had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment because it applied to
everyone and all races.

 Ah, so it just repealed enforcement of the traffic code full stop because
"muh racism!"?
 

But your apparent closet racism by assuming it applied to only Blacks
is interesting.

 If I assumed anything it's that the Tennessee law was a carbon copy of a
recent California bill proposed by a black assemblyman from Compton, which
specifically exempts only blacks from being stopped for most traffic
infractions, including speeding for anything short of 25mph over the posted
limit.
 This means if you have some lunatic blasting down a residential street at
50mph, the cops would just have to stand by and watch it happen if the
driver is black.
 The bill would also render any evidence of other crimes discovered during a
traffic stop inadmissible. So if the speeder in the above hypothetical was
racing down the residential street at 60mph and could now be legally
stopped by police, and they discovered a dead murder victim in his back
seat, the body and any other evidence in the car would be inadmissible in
court at his murder trial.
 Again, only for blacks.
 So yeah, when these ridiculous laws and policy efforts spring up all around
the country at roughly the same time, they're usually carbon copies of each
other sent direct from BLM headquarters.
 Mea culpa.
 

 

that was passed after Tyre Nichols was beaten to death by police in
2023 after one of these kind of aggressive traffic stops

 By black cops. But go on with your "But muh racism!" nonsense.
 

and making unauthorized street protests a felony instead of a
misdemeanor.

 Obviously misdemeanors weren't working.

 Making street protests felonies isn't going to work either, if the
perceived transgression is egregious enough.
 It's a felony to enter the Capitol Building in an unauthorized manner

 No, it's a misdemeanor. 18 USC 1751, Restricted Buildings and Grounds. The
same statute I used to lock up White House fence jumpers.
 

and vandalize it and threaten members of Congress, did that work?

"It is a federal crime to destroy or damage any property owned by or under the federal government's control. This law is embodied in Title 18 U.S.C. 1361. As amended on September 13, 1994, if the damage exceeds $100, the defendant is subject to a fine of up to $250,000, ten years imprisonment, or both."
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1666-destruction-government-property-18-usc-1361

What if the cops held the door open for them. Is that still unauthorized?

 Lie: The rioters were invited into the Capitol by police
A common refrain from January 6 rioters, and some of their Republican defenders, is that they were welcomed into the Capitol by police officers.
Trump said in a book interview in March that "the Capitol Police were ushering people in" and "the Capitol Police were very friendly. You know, they were hugging and kissing." The claim has been echoed by Trump supporters. For example, Trump-endorsed Republican Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake declared at a Trump rally in October that the people being held in jail over the Capitol attack "were invited in by Capitol Police."
Facts First: The claim that the rioters were invited into the Capitol is false. Again, about 140 police officers were assaulted while trying to stop the mob from breaching the Capitol. There were hours-long battles between police and rioters near some entrances. CNN obtained footage from police body-worn cameras showing how dozens of officers engaged in hand-to-hand combat with rioters in a desperate effort to keep them out of the building.
There are plenty of instances where rioters waltzed into the Capitol without a fight, but only after they had stormed past barricades and, in some cases, even stepped through broken windows. In some areas, police were so outnumbered by the mob that they retreated, stood aside or tried to politely engage with rioters to de-escalate the situation rather than fighting or making arrests, but that is clearly not the same as welcoming rioters into the building.
Since we don't have video of every single encounter between police and rioters, it's theoretically possible that some tiny number of officers did invite rioters in. The Capitol Police announced in September that three officers were facing discipline for unspecified noncriminal "conduct unbecoming" that day, while three others were facing discipline for other policy violations.
But no evidence has publicly emerged to date of even one officer inviting a rioter into the Capitol. And even if a few isolated incidents emerge in the future, it's clear that this was not a widespread or systemic occurrence as Trump and others suggested.
Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger said on CNN in September: "The officers that we have investigated and disciplined, the cases that we investigated, they run from minor infractions to officers making very poor judgments for more serious misconduct. But this notion that the Capitol Police were somehow allowing these folks into the Capitol, inviting them in, helping them, just simply not true."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/fact-check-capitol-insurrection-january-6-lies/index.html