*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[boost]

It's funny reading the BBC's live feed after watching six hours of live youtube footage. It's like they're reporting on something different to what I just saw.

"Violent mob", "rioters", but BLM were "protesters", "mostly peaceful".

I basically just watched six hours of people chanting "USA! USA!" and shouting at cops, before getting pushed back by police and the National Guard. The only actual violence I saw was a woman getting shot and killed, presumably by the police.

Real journalists are twats with phones and instagram accounts now.

They stormed the seat of one of our three branches of government. Wtf are you even talking about?

[OngBonga]

They stormed the seat of one of our three branches of government. Wtf are you even talking about?

I remember when you guys were calling looters "protesters". Now we have people storming a government building and you're outraged. It's quite funny, to be honest.

[Poopadoop]

I remember when you guys were calling looters "protesters". Now we have people storming a government building and you're outraged. It's quite funny, to be honest.

Not sure if you noticed, but it was the Capitol buidling they stormed while elected officials were inside of it in the process of confirming a democratic election. It's not like they stormed a post office lol.

[OngBonga]

Not sure if you noticed, but it was the Capitol buidling they stormed while elected officials were inside of it in the process of confirming a democratic election. It's not like they stormed a post office lol.

I realise this. But there is a huge difference between the kinds of protest we have seen in the last year. You guys were cheerleading the looting of shops because you agreed with their ideology. But when a group of people who protest an election result on the basis of perceived fraud storm an actual government building, for some reason this isn't cool.

Setting shops on fire... cool. Storming the Capitol... not cool.

Like I say, funny. You're blind to your own hypocrisy.

Let's just make one thing clear... from my pov, it doesn't matter if fraud was committed, what matters is if the people who are protesting believe fraud to have happened. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do genuinely think so. In that event, they have every right to protest. And I would say, in my humble opinion, that storming Capitol is a better form of protest that looting and setting fire to peoples' businesses.

[Poopadoop]

I realise this. But there is a huge difference between the kinds of protest we have seen in the last year. You guys were cheerleading the looting of shops because you agreed with their ideology.

No, we were not. No-one said looting is an acceptable thing to do. We objected to the use of deadly force against them because you, as I recall, thought the police should shoot the looters.

But when a group of people who protest an election result on the basis of perceived fraud

There isn't even any perceived fraud. There's fabricated allegations of fraud. If you're stupid enough to believe everything a serial liar like Trump says, then you're either delusional or an idiot, sorry.

So there's that.

storm an actual government building, for some reason this isn't cool.

I'll just let these words sit here and speak for themselves.

Setting shops on fire... cool.

No.

Storming the Capitol... not cool.

Correct.

Like I say, funny. You're blind to your own hypocrisy.

Because you just made it up right now, by claiming we were ok with people doing property damage. No-one here said that was an acceptable form of protest. We only said it did not justify a summary execution.

Let's just make one thing clear... from my pov, it doesn't matter if fraud was committed, what matters is if the people who are protesting believe fraud to have happened.

That's not how it works. If you forget to take your meds for a week and so start to believe the Queen is an alien lizard who needs to be stopped, that doesn't make it ok to try to bump her off.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do genuinely think so. In that event, they have every right to protest.

No-one ITT has said they don't have a right to protest.

And I would say, in my humble opinion, that storming Capitol is a better form of protest that looting and setting fire to peoples' businesses.

So if BLM supporters stormed the Houses of Parliament while it was in session to vote in the Brexit bill and all the MPs had to run for cover, you'd be ok with that as long as they didn't burn down any grocery stores on the way there. Gotcha.

[boost]

I realise this. But there is a huge difference between the kinds of protest we have seen in the last year. You guys were cheerleading the looting of shops because you agreed with their ideology. But when a group of people who protest an election result on the basis of perceived fraud storm an actual government building, for some reason this isn't cool.

Setting shops on fire... cool. Storming the Capitol... not cool.

Like I say, funny. You're blind to your own hypocrisy.

Let's just make one thing clear... from my pov, it doesn't matter if fraud was committed, what matters is if the people who are protesting believe fraud to have happened. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do genuinely think so. In that event, they have every right to protest. And I would say, in my humble opinion, that storming Capitol is a better form of protest that looting and setting fire to peoples' businesses.

You're an idiot.

MMM, ban me, wag your finger, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but this isn't ad hominem, Ong is trolling or is in fact an idiot.

[oskar]

You're an idiot.

MMM, ban me, wag your finger, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but this isn't ad hominem, Ong is trolling or is in fact an idiot.

I appreciate that he doesn't run from conflict as most people with his ideology do. Ong is not stupid in the sense that he can reason just fine, but he reasons strictly around his ideology like religious people do. Every information coming in has to be made to fit his image of the world. That results in him being perfectly capable of discussing things that are unimpeded by his ideology, but if the subject clashes with his ideology he ends up sounding like a total mong.

I remember I called Trump's last days almost beat by beat. I said he wouldn't accept losing the election, and his supporters will stand by him and go crazy. Ong called me a maniac for believing that iirc.
Now that it's happening, it can't be happening because it doesn't fit his model of the world. So it has to be justifiable, but since it's so unjustifiable, his reasoning can't make sense. He says [you said BLM burning down buildings wasn't bad] (strawman) but now you say [destroying the WH and trying to overthrow government is bad] - therefore the latter is not bad.

That is nonsense, but you go ahead and try to rationalize the events of Jan 6 if you have to categorically believe them to be good or at least ok, and see what comes out.

You see the same thing all over right wing media. They either say: those are peaceful protestors, you are crazy for saying they tried to harm anyone... If they do recognize that a coup d'etat is bad, they immediately rationalize it by saying: It was Antifa doing it!

[OngBonga]

The word being banded about at the moment is "insurrection". I'll be honest, I had to look that word up.

an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Does anyone here think this should be a crime?

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're an idiot.

MMM, ban me, wag your finger, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but this isn't ad hominem, Ong is trolling or is in fact an idiot.

[oskar]

I remember when you guys were calling looters "protesters". Now we have people storming a government building and you're outraged. It's quite funny, to be honest.

In the BLM protests the overall goal was to pressure lawmakers into holding police accountable. While there was vandalism, the vandalism wasn't the object of the protest and for every protester who chose to destroy property there were thousands who chose not to.

In the march on the capitol, the object was to break into the capitol. The insurrection wasn't a byproduct, it was the objective.

[Poopadoop]

In the BLM protests the overall goal was to pressure lawmakers into holding police accountable. While there was vandalism, the vandalism wasn't the object of the protest and for every protester who chose to destroy property there were thousands who chose not to.

In the march on the capitol, the object was to break into the capitol. The insurrection wasn't a byproduct, it was the objective.

There were also numerous documented cases of the police using violent force on peaceful protesters as well as the media.

The sweetest irony of this is that Ong calls US hypocrites, but if Remainers had stormed Parliament while the Brexit bill was being passed because some Remainer loony and the loony media had convinced them the referendum was rigged, he'd have been calling for them all to be shot in the face on the spot for opposing democracy. He wouldn't be making arguments about how they had a right to act on their deluded beliefs.

Keeping order is only important when it's to support the kind of order you personally voted for apparently.

[OngBonga]

In the BLM protests the overall goal was to pressure lawmakers into holding police accountable. While there was vandalism, the vandalism wasn't the object of the protest and for every protester who chose to destroy property there were thousands who chose not to.

In the march on the capitol, the object was to break into the capitol. The insurrection wasn't a byproduct, it was the objective.

This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?

[Poopadoop]

This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?

When people storm a building, you generally don't assume it's with peaceful intentions. They could peacefully protest outside without posing a threat to anyone or their property. Instead they went inside and (gasp) looted the Capital building. So why don't you want them shot too?

[oskar]

This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?

People are protesting inside the halls of congress all the time. That alone is not a problem. Having a rally where the incumbent president says: this election was stolen from us... you can't let this happen... If Pence doesn't stop this, it is on you... and then to have his mob forcefully break into the halls of congress to stop the certification of the election in which the incumbent lost... that is a coup! That is the textbook definition of a coup. They are completely unorganized and they are following the incoherent directions of a lunatic, so they predictably failed, but it was a coup attempt.
If government does not have the monopoly on violence, it is not a government. When mobs can take control of a government building, you by definition no longer have a government.

Let me restate this again: the loser of the election directed a mob to storm the halls of congress to stop the certification of his successor. That is not protest. That is a coup.