Merry Normalization of Lies Day

[ZiprHead]

The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.

That not what you said originally. You said "Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection". All responses were based upon that erroneous statement. Moving goalposts. Not cool.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.

They have a meterwall, not a paywall. It can be circumvented.

Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

In practice, a wild claim from a red source is almost certainly garbage and not worth investigating. Real stuff makes it to the mainstream media.

 

[ZiprHead]

I love it! Lumpen's first post in the Normalization of Lies thread is a lie (no, I"m not accusing Lumpen of lying).

I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.

Never Forget That Trump Purged the Pentagon Leadership Between the Election and January 6

And that the new leadership he installed seized direct control over deploying the National Guard that day. And that deployment was delayed for hours.

www.esquire.com

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeargh! Why this Pelosi refuse National Guard help before the riot.

Umm... why did President Trump incite a riot in the first place?

YEARGH! Yee be changing the subject.

 

[Patooka]

Fuck me this cunt is incoherent:

 

[ZiprHead]

he's either totally delusional or a total sociopath.

 

[Patooka]

he's either totally delusional or a total sociopath.

RE 3 minute mark - What the fuck is a sacred number anyways?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.

You're right. So then, what should happen, instead of what actually has been happening?

Trump and many of his cohorts should have been subpoenaed to testify, and refusing to show up they should have been arrested and convicted and imprisoned for this crime.

And Pelosi or others who failed to do their duty, a much lesser offense, should simply have been censured by the Congress and forced to resign in disgrace.

So all those blameworthy should be given their appropriate punishment.

Why do you want to absolve the Blues of any blame and insist that only Reds/Trumpists can ever be investigated for wrongdoing?

I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first.

Why doesn't that include those who chose not to provide extra security to prevent violence, when this was an obvious choice for them to make? Why are they not also accountable for their shit as much as those who caused the mob to show up?

Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

ALL of this is "hindsight," including the investigation into who planned for the mob to be there or who "actually did shit" -- that too is all "hindsight."

ALL the wrongdoing which ended up causing the "coup" to become lawless should be investigated, all of which is "hindsight" regardless whether it's Reds/Trumpsters or some Democrats who are to blame for negligence. You can't separate supposed "hindsight arguments" as having less priority or to be excluded until later. Congress can take action to punish those who are responsible for the lack of security. These ones likely had a sinister motive of wanting the coup to become violent so it could be used for political gain.

You could claim we have no way to determine their motive. But at least they should have to resign, for their irresponsibility, as many cases are resolved by those guilty not being convicted but having to resign in disgrace.

It was known in advance, by all those in high position, that there would be riots unless extra security measures were taken. This fact was known, from all the evidence so far.

Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".

This cliché is meaningless. The rioters are not saying anything like this. The ones responsible for the chaos are all those who told them to commit violence or who neglected proper preparation for adequate security.

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.

You're right. So then, what should happen, instead of what actually has been happening?

Trump and many of his cohorts should have been subpoenaed to testify, and refusing to show up they should have been arrested and convicted and imprisoned for this crime.

And Pelosi or others who failed to do their duty, a much lesser offense, should simply have been censured by the Congress and forced to resign in disgrace.

So all those blameworthy should be given their appropriate punishment.

Why do you want to absolve the Blues of any blame and insist that only Reds/Trumpists can ever be investigated for wrongdoing?

I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first.

Why doesn't that include those who chose not to provide extra security to prevent violence, when this was an obvious choice for them to make? Why are they not also accountable for their shit as much as those who caused the mob to show up?

Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

ALL of this is "hindsight," including the investigation into who planned for the mob to be there or who "actually did shit" -- that too is all "hindsight."

ALL the wrongdoing which ended up causing the "coup" to become lawless should be investigated, all of which is "hindsight" regardless whether it's Reds/Trumpsters or some Democrats who are to blame for negligence. You can't separate supposed "hindsight arguments" as having less priority or to be excluded until later. Congress can take action to punish those who are responsible for the lack of security. These ones likely had a sinister motive of wanting the coup to become violent so it could be used for political gain.

You could claim we have no way to determine their motive. But at least they should have to resign, for their irresponsibility, as many cases are resolved by those guilty not being convicted but having to resign in disgrace.

It was known in advance, by all those in high position, that there would be riots unless extra security measures were taken. This fact was known, from all the evidence so far.

Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".

This cliché is meaningless. The rioters are not saying anything like this. The ones responsible for the chaos are all those who told them to commit violence or who neglected proper preparation for adequate security.

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.

Let's try to make this simple. Let's assume that Pelosi is responsible for capital security (there is no proof for this). Assuming this for fun: who would you hold responsible for a bank being robbed: the local police chief in charge of security; or the thieves?

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why is a RED source automatically or "obviously false"? (and thus not to be investigated)

I'm not against a "red source". But produce it.

Sean Hannity (radio show) said Pelosi rejected an effort to request additional security (i.e., an effort made BEFORE Jan. 6 and so ignored by all your Google "abundant sources" above). And if Thom Hartmann accuses Republican leaders of something similar, that too ought to be investigated. A (Left or Right) radio propagandist is a legitimate source, in this case, i.e., a source for the accusation, not the facts, which the investigation then has to determine.

Well, Hannity has zero credibility regarding Trump. He was a close confident of Traitor Trump offering him personal advice for months.

All radio propagandists are legitimate sources for accusations against those in power, on either side.

Hannity was not wrong when he said Delaware's voting restrictions are worse than Georgia's. No one could refute that. Instead they just make excuses why the standards for Georgia need to be different than for Delaware.

The Red sources all said Jussie Smollet was a liar, right from the start, while all the Blue sources insisted that he was telling the truth. So there's one case where the Reds were right and Blues had "zero" credibility.

So we need to set aside the prejudice, e.g. the Hannity-Hate and all other bias, and just accept any source which speaks for a large constituency, for their accusations, against Reds or Blues, and investigate all of them, without imposing either the Red or Blue narrative as the standard for truth.

Secondly, if the above had any legs, why wouldn't the republicans have pushed it?

Some are pushing it, but others not, probably because it means they too, some of them, could also be accused of the same thing. E.g., maybe McConnell is similarly guilty of ignoring the need for increased security for Jan. 6 when the riots would likely occur.

They know that it doesn't.

No, they know it does, but some are afraid of where such investigation would lead.

Hence, they ran from the committee.

After Pelosi expelled the ones they selected, they saw it was stacked against them, as a partisan exhibition rather than an impartial investigation into the facts of what caused the riots to happen.

I agree with you that there wasn't enough security at the capitol. But it's such a minor issue.

No, it's a major issue, because this failure of security is the main cause of the riots. It was predicted in advance that there would be violence and that the police would not be able to handle it. This has been proved in all the evidence so far.

You aren't seeing the trees through the forest.

What's important is whatever should have happened to prevent the riot from happening, or whatever should not have happened which caused it.

The real crime is trying to stop the certification of the election.

No, the violence and trespass and destruction of property is the real crime. If all they had done was peacefully protested the certification, and even made speeches why the certification should stop, there would have been no crime.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

In practice, a wild claim from a red source is almost certainly garbage and not worth investigating.

translation: no claim should ever be investigated, as long as anyone doesn't like the claim (thinks it's "garbage").

By this standard we should have no investigation into climate change, which millions of Americans think is "garbage."

Real stuff makes it to the mainstream media.

Like the Jussie Smollett story, the hate crime in Chicago which the mainstream media promoted for several days.

However, the mainstream media, not just red sources, did report that someone higher-up turned down requests for more security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like the following is from both NPR and the Washington Post:

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots​

Steven Sund contradicts reports that help was not requested, saying security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed calls for assistance ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol.

www.npr.org
The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

It says "no one at the Capitol" requested extra security. It also says there was resistance to "declaring an emergency ahead of the protests" or having "a National Guard presence" prior to the demonstration:

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.

It says extra security was rejected because of their concern with the "optics" of such emergency preparations.

The above is only one source among many, where mention is made of warnings BEFORE Jan. 6 and possible rioting which might happen, and why such warnings were rejected, and an apparent order handed down from on high that such steps would communicate some kind of undesirable symbolism ("optics").

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He said that they wanted the National Guard prepped for the protests.

The US Military refused to get involved during the riot. You'll notice few significant words there.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.

Never Forget That Trump Purged the Pentagon Leadership Between the Election and January 6

And that the new leadership he installed seized direct control over deploying the National Guard that day. And that deployment was delayed for hours.

www.esquire.com

OK we agree.

Trump should be arrested and put on trial for refusing the subpoena to appear before Congress to answer the above and other charges, and sentenced to prison for that crime (and others too who refused to appear).

And Pelosi should be subpoenaed to appear and explain why the requests for additional security were not made. And whether she is the one who gave the order to not have extra security, because someone did give that order. If not her, then who?

So we agree -- ALL those who are to blame should be investigated and punished according to their degree of negligence or dereliction, and not exclusively Reds only, for partisan political gain, as Democrats are doing right now.

The facts show that the lack of security is the most conspicuous wrong which occurred here, because all the reports show that the riot was predicted in advance and that much greater police presence would be needed to prevent it.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.

That not what you said originally. You said "Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection". All responses were based upon that erroneous statement. Moving goalposts. Not cool.

Maybe an additional "goalpost" was added, although they were both there together. But the original goalpost is still the same. The accusation was made against her, and it's not debunked by anyone, and everyone is circling the wagons around her to shield her from ever having to be answerable for her irresponsibility.

All the following relates to the original accusation, that Pelosi rejected requests for extra security, not just that she failed to make such a request, but that some such request had been made, and she said "NO!" to it because the "optics" would look bad -- (from the earlier NPR item):

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? It seems it's because he blamed "security officials at the House and Senate" for the mistakes, or failure to have better security. I.e., he indirectly blamed Pelosi (and maybe also McConnell).

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

There are 2 characters here, Steven Sund and Paul Irving, who made a decision against additional security, BEFORE Jan. 6, and the only reason given is that someone was worried about the "optics" of having such added security. This was decided by someone, and yet everyone knew there would be riots if the additional security was not provided. Who instructed Paul Irving, House Sergeant-at-Arms, that extra security was undesirable because of the "optics"? That was probably Nancy Pelosi. Why shouldn't she have to answer this? Why shouldn't Irving be required to testify and answer it?

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? Probably because of his interview where he seems to shift responsibility for the bad decision to someone at the Capitol, i.e., to Paul Irving, and thus indirectly to Pelosi, who had everything to gain from a violent storming of the capitol, so her party could cash in on it for propaganda purposes, so hearings could be held for political gain and propaganda.

When you goad someone into committing a crime, you're partly to blame for the crime when they commit it. The decision to not have the extra security is a factor which decided whether the riots would happen, even a major cause of them. Probably a bigger factor than anything else. The fact that a protest demonstration was planned and would make a lot of noise is a lesser factor than the decision to have no extra security. Plus, to hold a noisy demonstration is not a crime.

 

[Patooka]

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.

No, the people who encouraged the rioters are also responsible. The people who refused to take action at the time of the riot are responsible. There is a big difference, a huge difference between Pelosi fucking up whilst believing in good faith (naively in my opinion) that MAGiots wouldn't resort to domestic terrorism and Trump inciting a mob and then cheering whilst watching it on TV. The way you are arguing suggests they are somehow equivalent.

In my opinion, Pelosi is a fucking naive idiot. She fucked up. Her decision to undermine security wasn't deliberate. Trump's actions were, and that is confirmed by his own fucking people. A mistake and a choice are not on equal footing. "Look what you made me do", is a perfect metaphor for how conservatives are now rationalizing Jan 6th. It's all Pelosi's fault because she didn't keep them in check.

The facts show that the lack of security is the most conspicuous wrong which occurred here

Nope. Not even by a long shot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.

Never Forget That Trump Purged the Pentagon Leadership Between the Election and January 6

And that the new leadership he installed seized direct control over deploying the National Guard that day. And that deployment was delayed for hours.

www.esquire.com

OK we agree.

Trump should be arrested and put on trial for refusing the subpoena to appear before Congress to answer the above and other charges, and sentenced to prison for that crime (and others too who refused to appear).

Related to inciting a riot, both before and during.

And Pelosi should be subpoenaed to appear and explain why the requests for additional security were not made. And whether she is the one who gave the order to not have extra security, because someone did give that order. If not her, then who?

*sinking TItanic*

But who was in charge of the chair arrangements?!

 

[TomC]

In my opinion, Pelosi is a fucking naive idiot. She fucked up. Her decision to undermine security wasn't deliberate. Trump's actions were, and that is confirmed by his own fucking people.

Pelosi is many things, but naive idiot is not one of them.

I'm no mindreader. I can't say for sure what Pelosi was thinking.
But I know this.
There was a similar episode after the 2016 election. If you'll recall, the U.S. electorate voted for someone besides Trump then also. And patriotic Americans showed up to express themselves and denounce the undemocratic method of appointing a POTUS.

They were polite and peaceful. They dispersed when they'd had their say. They didn't undermine basic USA institutions with violence and lies. They didn't cause any death or destruction. They didn't shit on the floor or erect any gallows.

Apparently, Pelosi mistook the morals of rightist protesters for the morals of lefty protesters. Clearly, that was a mistake. Righty protesters demonstrated how much more violent and stupid and lawless than lefty protesters they are.

It's right there on the internet for anyone to see.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Pelosi is many things, but naive idiot is not one of them.

After some thought I think you're right. An argument can be made that she is out of touch however. It's not a quality unique to her alone but that Hamilton pandering was absolute cringe. It would be like is an Australian politician sang, "I am, you are, we are Australian". I guess I was trying to meet Lumpenprolitariat half way when I should have said Pelosi's good faith decisions/errors of judgement contributed to about 0.5% of what happened on Jan 6th and the committee would do well to focus on the other 99.5% first.

Apparently, Pelosi mistook the morals of rightist protesters for the morals of lefty protesters. Clearly, that was a mistake. Righty protesters demonstrated how much more violent and stupid and lawless than lefty protesters they are.

That's what fucking baffles me. After driving into protesters, mailing pipe bombs and plans to kidnap Governors I am nonplussed when people still assume Republicans will err on the side of decency. And before the usual suspects start typing away at their keyboards with their usual whataboutisms, I'll point out that no elected so called leftist official openly embraces such extremist movements.

 

[TomC]

After some thought I think you're right.

OMFG!
A woman claws her way up to the 3rd highest office in the USA.

And just now you have given it enough thought to realize that she isn't a naive idiot?

I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi is flattered that you have given her another thought.

Tom

 

[Patooka]

After some thought I think you're right.

OMFG!
A woman claws her way up to the 3rd highest office in the USA.

And just now you have given it enough thought to realize that she isn't a naive idiot?

I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi is flattered that you have given her another thought.

Tom

Whether or not Nancy Pelosi is a naive idiot or whether her decisions with regards to security were acts of naive stupidity is a semantic rabbit hole I have no intention of diving into. Having said that, yes it was a cuntish thing I said. I won't repeat myself on why I said it in the first place.