This is scary, yes, but ultimately grounded in verifiable facts and many scientists have come forward to express their concerns. It is most certainly nothing like the Q nonsense.
I would say the key difference about the left is that the supporters of these kinds of movements rarely get much support at the top. Even Bernie Sanders and AOC have stepped back from supporting certain movements after criticism (I'm thinking of Venezuela), while such contrition on the right is rare (until the Capitol sedition).
>Members of Congress who think that climate change will destroy the world within 10 years?
Who, precisely? And what did they say?
> 'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says
I really doubt AOC actually believed at any time that the world would end in 2030 (cf. Paris Agreement's 2030 Agenda).
It's not a stretch at all. It's an offhand comment being compared to a months-long disinformation campaign. Frankly, I was generous.
They're both making headline-grabbing claims, but one of these is at least based in fact.
How much time was devoted to Trump and his "two scoops of ice cream", "dumping seed in the koi fish pond" or any of the hundreds of miniscule things he did - most of which were just mandanities, framed into a false lens and then magnified.
I'm not saying that Trump was good, just that there was so much noise from social media about how absolutely everything he did was not just "bad", but the "worst ever". A lot of left-leaning source went into an absolute frenzy about anything and everything he did to try and spin it as the worst.
Trump is almost certainly among the bottom 3-4 worst US presidents in history [1]. Was each individual action the "worst ever"? No, of course not. But the sum of the pieces was indeed ghastly, and it's ridiculous to claim that these are just gaffs like any public figure has, and once everyone calms down and stops blowing things out of proportion he will be regarded as just another normal, middle-of-the-road president.
[1]: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/15/politics/trump-best-worst-pre...
Why wasn’t the left all in a lather about killing 100s of thousands of innocent Iraquis based on false evidence of Chemical weapons stockpiles? Why not impeach Bush then? Why not now?
The democratic party is still in the pocket of big business. Don't confuse them with actual leftists.
How many are dead due to Trump's refusal to address covid19? Hundreds of thousands of civilians.
[] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/24/georg...
Never mind the absolute fiasco around supply stockpiles and the management of testing, most of which ended up dumped onto governors even after splashy announcements gave the impression that a national strategy was coming.
So yeah, reality absolutely bears out that the Trump administration's handling of covid was a complete fiasco, and that many, many fewer people could have died if it were done better.
But somehow this is all no big deal to the political movement that once lost its mind over Obama's so-called "death panels."
Anyways: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/21/politics/biden-covid-vaccinat...
As one example of, ? Thousands?
>culminating in an armed assault that some now claim as a false flag operation?
We had to hear all summer about how it was really Boogaloo Boys/White Nationalists/The CIA and not BLM rioting. This is something I see as endemic to all sides. I think this must be perspective based as everything in the above list has a mirror image from the other party, and in both cases it seems like a fair criticism.
I think an important distinction here is that the riots had no political goal to them, and had almost no support from BLM figures themselves, and even less from national politicians. Indeed, if your goal is for the police to be defunded, then the last thing you would want to do is create a situation where people fear for their lives and their property and need the protection of the police.
Contrast that with the goals of the people storming the Capitol and you'll see that they had national politicians who also wanted to interrupt the joint session of Congress and prevent (some of) the electoral votes from being counted, to ultimately change the outcome of the election.
- There were no politicians or their cronies calling for "trial by combat" or similar.
- There was no one showing up with a gallows.
- There was no intent to disrupt a democratic procedure.
- Where violence occurred, it was quickly and unequivocally condemned across the board.
- Destruction of property is not the same as threatening physical harm to people (and no, before you go there, engaging with riot police is not the same as advancing on a chamber of mostly-elderly, unarmed politicians).
The rioters cannot honestly be lumped into the Democrat, blm, etc groups as different groups plainly held different objectives. I think the best explanation for the riots is simply revenge against people that sit comfortably ignoring the disaffected cries for help.
Revenge and destruction and murder are justified so long as it doesn't interfer with a political process?
Yes, ~25 Americans were killed last year in connection to these things, but as this article shows, that may be as much about the presence of guns at these things than anything else— here's a pretty solid summary: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-kill...
Understanding why people do things, even bad things, is crucial to easing divisiveness.
I understand why people stormed the capitol. I do not condone their actions and hope they are all made examples of.
Just as I understand the hundreds of years of history that is behind this summers protests. I am far more sympathetic to the tens of millions that protested against fascism and racism then I am to the actual fascists that tried to usurp democracy and install a dictator while taking scalps.
When impoverished, abused, and neglected people peacefully take to streets en masse to demand change are met with brutal policing, that could be war crimes, instead of compromise and change what else do you honestly expect to happen? When millions of people can't afford to put on the table what do you expect them to do when the majority party fails to provide even a poverty level existence during a pandemic that disproportionately effects their demographic? Should they shut up and starve to death? Should they continue to take these beatings from police? Until the field is leveled don't expect this movement to die; they're fighting for their right to live.
You want to equate that with the Capitol riots which happened over a span of a few hours by a few hundred people? Seriously?
These riots piss you off and terrify you because they expose the fragility of your privileged existence that is wholly reliant on the systemic imbalances the protestors have spent their lives under the boot of.
Fighting for ones right to exist without being murdered by police is the argument of blm. Focus on that instead of using the actions of a few to air your racist and classist grievances.
Protesting is a feature of democracy even if it offends you.
Storming Congress to hang the vice president and Trump's other political enemies is an assault on democracy and a push for dictatorship.
Your inability to recognize the difference is extremely concerning.
The only difference I see was the media approved of one and didn't of the other. There are far more similarities.
Both felt an injustice and disenfranchisement had taken place by their government.
Both were co-opted by the most extremists members of the group and caused havoc.
Both groups ridiculed the perverse and dangerous actions of a few.
I don't agree with or associate with either but they were mostly the same.
As a black American I absolutely consider last year's widespread urban riots WORSE than the Capitol raid. The summer demonstrated a complete unwillingness to enforce law and order, creating an environment which cost the lives of at least 3 black people[1][2][3], and close to 30 other American lives as well. Livelihoods of minority small-business owners were destroyed. [4][5] We can nitpick whether this was explicitly supported by politicians, but it's fairly obvious it was tacitly supported by Democrat leadership for political gain in an election year.[6] As I look for small business investment opportunities, why would I ever put money in a distressed American neighborhood, with such a high risk for destruction of assets in the current political climate? I'll do business with my Mozambican and Tanzanian friends before I ever invest in an American district run by the sort of idiots who steered their own communities towards evaporating wealth instead of building it. And I bet you we wouldn't have had the upswell in insurgent inclinations that culminated in the Capitol raid if the Trump-supporting extremists hadn't observed the rampant civil unrest for months and concluded "Oh, I guess it's okay to break stuff and violate rules now. There seems to be minimal consequences." Boy were they wrong.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_David_Dorn
[2] https://www.kltv.com/2020/07/29/black-trump-supporter-fatall...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/seattle-protests-CHOP-...
[4] https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-firefighter-devastated-minn...
[5] https://fee.org/articles/here-are-just-10-of-the-many-minori...
[6] https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-hypocrisy-riots-reveals-p...
You didn't see republican leaders putting on riot gear to go beat people up, thus they must have been supportive
I’m sorry the reporting is so bad. Here in the US as a leftist I saw most of my friends posting “in defense of rioting”, “property isn’t people”, and quoting MLK on the lessons of riots. The right just thought they could stage a coup and also get away without any criticism for trying.
The capitol riots were both smaller in scale and, more importantly generally condemned by their sides equivalent levers of power.
I actually consider the right response here more reasonable than the left.
Working at MSNBC? [1]
The far-left conspiracy groups probably got really quiet after one of their own tried to murder Republican Congressmen. Did everyone just forget about that? [2]
*On May 22, Hodgkinson wrote "Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It's Time to Destroy Trump & Co." above his repost of a Change.org petition demanding "the legal removal" of Trump and Vice President Mike Pence for "treason". He belonged to numerous political Facebook groups, including those named "Terminate the Republican Party", "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans", and "Donald Trump is not my President."*
[1]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/russia-has-been-cult...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_sh...
I'm generally in the center, but dislike when one party treats the other as solely being the problem. While I can't think of a specific qanon level of craziness on that side, they have their own, different craziness.
Hi, I'm "the left", at least for the purposes of this conversation. The left did no such thing. I tried to get us to do so because there was clearly a fraudulent election. But it didn't matter what I said, the left didn't want to hear none of it. They were more concerned (legitimately) about Russophobia and not giving too much legitimacy to the alphabet soup agencies.
Please cite sources for Democratic senators, congresspeople, and/or party officials advancing these claims.
- Nancy Pelosi on May 16, 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_...
Trump asked the Russians to hack Hillary, and hours later they began probing the Clinton domains.
Russian government hacked Podesta
Russian government hacked the DNC
Russian government gave those emails to Wikileaks to hurt Hillary / boost Trump and they were weaponized explicitly to do so (e.g. the Podesta release coming hours after the President was on tape bragging about grabbing women by the pussy)
Russian businessmen, closely linked to the government spent millions of dollars on a social media campaign to boost Trump
Trump's campaign took several meetings with Russians offering help with the election, including explicit meetings offered as "Part of the government's assistance to the Trump campaign" and then lied to the press and the government when asked about those meetings
Trump's campaign manager gave private polling data to several Russians, including a probable spy
Trump dangled pardons for his team if they didn't cooperate with the investigation
Trump pardoned those people who didn't cooperate with the investigation
Trump's team changed the entire GOP platform to be more friendly to Russia
Trump's transition team took clandestine meetings to promise to remove sanctions that were in place for the above activity.
Trump's son-in-law offered to take meetings in the Russian embassy to be out of range of US intelligence.
So far as I can tell, the "Hoax" that people are adamant about refers to the Mueller finding where they couldn't prove that any of the above was coordinated - And it very well might not have been! - but to say that it was a hoax that Russia helped Trump win is so silly.
Has plenty of names and links to read all about it, if you missed it.
"Even after the Mueller report clearly indicated that there was no provable collusion or coordination between the Russian government and the Trump campaign, Schiff continued to propagate the lie."
Except that it didn't, really.
"there was knowing and complicit behavior between the Trump campaign and Russians that stopped short of direct coordination, which may constitute conspiracy"[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_report#Redacted_report...
THIS is the problem!
If your last question is in earnest...I guess nowhere in particular and yet everywhere. I don't particularly like any of the news media companies, as I find they all have a blatant bias.
However, in front of Tea Party, Trumpism and coup attempt, sadly outrage and calls for accountability are rightly justified.
Of course the tan suit "scandal" was trivial bullshit, but that's the whole point, that that's the source material that Fox News is working with to drum up this kind of outrage— the rest is pure fabrications, a self-feeding cycle where Fox provides a legitimizing platform for it, which then generates the interest and demand for "coverage". So it may well be that both sides see the other as extreme and polarizing, but it's important to not actually equate them, because that is super unfair when one of the sides is in a state of denial about basic reality.