Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: NBC Historian Takes Media's "Bloodbath" Insanity To A Whole New Level
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 22:26:17 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 191
Message-ID: <utdl0p$19mot$1@dont-email.me>
References: <utbtok$pkre$10@dont-email.me> <20240319122424.00002ca9@example.com> <EvOdnfeMWpo2RWT4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <utctt9$11hfm$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-266AD3.15011119032024@g9u1993c-hb.houston.hpicorp.net> <utd5p0$1371j$1@dont-email.me> <atropos-F34389.17010519032024@g9u1993c-hb.houston.hpicorp.net> <utdc9v$14eu2$1@dont-email.me> <p6mcnRxmu82A02f4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="557b188166542a23533bab4982a9202f";
	logging-data="1366813"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1yK6kLwMtDhyGj3AyN18YQI4MeKE6RiM="
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4EyKTfU4vjvUk5hs/QUFSkwthQM=
Bytes: 9907

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 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========