From "Ted Cruz grovels to Tucker Carlson over Jan. 6 ‘terrorist attack’ remark" (WaPo). You don't have to trust WaPo. interview:
I'd like to see a list of all the times Cruz did call those who attack police officers terrorists. But even if he can claim that consistently, over a long period of time, he's used the word "terrorist" in that specific way, it still wouldn't justify calling the January 6th incident a terrorist attack, only calling a subset of the protesters terrorists. To call the entire incident a terrorist attack, you'd need some sort of pre-existing plan to attack the police.
Does Cruz's position have something to do with the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, where many people came out to protests and then a subset proceeded to get violent? Did he ascribe the intent to commit acts of violence to the entire protesting group? If so, that might explain Cruz's effort at consistency, and it might also cause fair-minded people to take better care in demonizing protesters.
We need and value our protesters in America. Yes, sometimes, some protesters go too far. They get violent. They break into buildings. But big protests are not terrorist attacks. I can understand the motivation to pressure people to stay home and not even appear in a protest lest they be deemed to participate in terrorism. That's a contemptible motivation.
পোস্টগুলি
৯২টি মন্তব্য:
The point is to get it under detention laws that defy habeas corpus.
If Gandhi can be taken as authority, then it is the duty of peaceful protestors to retire their homes if it proves that their movement conceals violent people. It seems, then, that the violent acts and terrorist motives can only be imputed to those who commit those acts, or to those who have previously seen their sorts of protests conceal violent people.
Carlson did not let up. That's impressive. It does sound like Cruz is lying but I would like to know if he did use that term for other police attacking protestors gone wild in the past. Regardless, although I don't keep up with political or much other news anymore except incidentally on this blog or other peripheral sources, I will vote for Cruz as my Senator whenever he runs again like I did the last time I had the chance, assuming he is the lesser of evils. I vote straight lesser of evils.
How many people feel the same way as you?
If our elected officials sweet talk when they are up for election, but talk -and promote action - to suppress the peoples ability to protest in Any meaningful way, and people (which people?) start to believe that such political actions as just, where do we as a country stand?
While I personally see a lot of protests as idiotic and ineffective, it would never cross my mind that anything should be done to suppress or distort what those protests are, or are for. It seems the media and politicians think otherwise, and those who consume their rhetoric appear to concur.
I don’t value racist, Marxist protesters at all.
DeSantis in 2024!
Stop Calling Jan. 6 an ‘Insurrection’
That’s a legal term that denotes much more than a sporadically violent riot or disturbance.
The events of Jan. 6, 2021, are misunderstood, and the failure to correct the record could be damaging to both America’s future and its justice system. Words have to have meaning, and the continuous mislabeling of the U.S. Capitol breach as an “insurrection” is an example of how a false narrative can gain currency and cause dangerous injustice.
The misuse of words, especially involving criminal accusations, can easily result in overreaching enforcement of the law and a chilling effect on free speech, all of which have already happened—and in this case, endanger the very system the rioters’ accusers purport to protect.
WSJ
https://on.wsj.com/3JPeQnZ
Seems to me that a terrorist attack is one that is intended to instill terror among the populace . . . like a bomb in a departments store, a plane flown into an office building, a suicide bomber on a transit bus, a pipe bomb in a park or along a race route. The message is you aren't safe!
You risk your life doing anything anywhere.
A mob looting and burning stores is NOT a terror attack - maybe a riot - not terrorism. A mob trying to enter a capital, be it in Madison or Washington DC, is a mob and if they're out of control then it's riot, in my opinion.
Yes, I've heard that some journalists who were in the capital on January 6 are claiming PTSD so arguably, I suppose, if they were terrorized, it would be the result of some terrorist act(s). Still, we could apply a reasonable person test to determine if was a terrorist attack 'cause, maybe, PTSD is just an unreasonable snowflakes reaction.
Anyway, that's what I think.
I loved when the violent terrorists stayed behind the velvet ropes in Statuary Hall
Not much of a mob, either.
The outrage is also about the asymmetry and the extreme, exaggerated language. Over the top, exaggerated language is how you spot a liar…
I have to say that Carlson was right to call the "sloppy" defense as a lame excuse.
What I don't get is Cruz' saying it in the first place. Does he have political ambitions which require him to make a show of dumping his conservative base? And how many liberals would buy it? Not many, I suspect.
Has he been doing some polling which makes this a good idea? So....?
“ I can understand the motivation to pressure people to stay home and not even appear in a protest lest they be deemed to participate in terrorism. That's a contemptible motivation.”
^ It’s almost like those Amendments; 1, 2, 3, 4… actually mean a whole lot more to our society than what politicians and talking heads admit or understand.
I think it's worth saying plainly what the prof. suggests at here--by calling the riot a terrorist attack, he is not just calling the people who assaulted police officers terrorists (as wrong as that would be by itself), he is calling everyone there a terrorist--not just the violent, but also the people who merely saw an open door and walked through it and even the people who did nothing wrong whatsoever.
It's hard to see Cruz's game here. Carlson is right that Cruz is someone whose reputation is built on being careful with language. It's also true that Cruz has had many moments of pandering and kowtowing mixed in with his laudable defenses of principle and brutal grilling of evasive committee witnesses. It's as though there are two Ted Cruzes. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Spineless.
The point is to get it under detention laws that defy habeas corpus.
Try and challenge this argument. I’ll hold your beer…
I thought the general definition of terrorism was an attack calculated to cause civilian casualties an create terror within a civilian population. To define it as any attack on the police seems 90 degrees out of phase. (I suppose the bombing of the King David hotel and the marine barracks in Beirut could be called terrorism, but those are outliers IMO).
I am genuinely surprised that so few people seem to know how the game is played. When "tough" politicians mysteriously collapse, the reason why is always "donors." One of the financier types in Ted Cruz's camp clearly told him that if he didn't take this tack he was out. The problem is that Cruz is a relatively weak candidate, even in general elections, and that any primary will be sufficient to see him off after this disastrous mistake.
This is a major reason to keep supporting Trump, given that seemingly any politician can go this way. Looking at you, Ron DeSantis.
I was one of the people who thought Ted Cruz growing a beard made him look less like a skeevy politician.
Watching Cruz as he explain his comments last night, with a beard, erased that.
Maybe he can change the part of his hair or something?
I often find myself making "The Tucker Carlson Face" these days, particularly when "political" matters (which seems to cover a very wide swath) are being discussed.
I'm making it now.
Cruz was my candidate. Very disappointing.
I think Doctrev is right. Which is perhaps even more disappointing. Or the FBI has something on him. After all, his father did kill JFK. ;^)
Strange, strange times.
Also--good for Carlson to take the issue on without flinching. I don't generally like the airing of intramural squabbles, but Cruz is clearly aiding and comforting the enemy.
SAGOLDIE, I agree with much of what you said but your paragraph on journalists detracts from your analysis. Your conclusion about journalists being snowflakes at least brings it to the proper conclusion. Journalists should know PTSD can be caused by things other than terrorist attacks and most of it is due to war. But then again, journalists might cower if you use the wrong pronoun or do something they consider a microaggression.
Cruz is academically smart but he has a crappy political IQ. He constantly says and does stupid things as a politician. That is the explanation. He would have been better off as a judge.
Cruz has a tendency to go Wile E. Coyote in his political calculations. He’s never going to get the Strange New Respect he seeks and his machinations are obvious to anyone paying attention.
Cruz's wife, Heidi, is currently a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs. She previously was an advisor to the Bush-Cheney administration. She holds graduate degrees in Business from both Haaaaavaaaaahd (Harvard) and a university in Belgium.
Seeing it more clearly now?
Cruz knew exactly what he was doing. His DC beltway advisors told him it would be a great idea to go this route.
And then immediately after Cruz played as Liz Cheney, again, the base let him know he's done.
That's why Cruz went on Tucker last night.
But its too late.
Cruz just allowed the DC Beltway crew to shove him over the same cliff that they forced Scott Walker over in 2016.
Scott Walker...a successful populist outside of DC governor...perfect for 2016...but what does Walker do? Hire DC Consultants...and POOF!
Never heard from again.
Can you imagine the arguments at Team Ted right now over whose idea it was for Ted to commit political suicide?
Ted has a problem now....in Texas! Conservatives will be champing at the bit to run against him.
They get violent. They break into buildings. But big protests are not terrorist attacks.
Not all "big protests" are terrorist attacks. But if they use lawless violence for a political goal, they could be terrorist attacks. The Capitol riot did use lawless violence for a political goal — the especially destructive political goal of trying to undo the results of an American election. (The fact that it couldn't possibly have been effective at achieving that goal doesn't stop it from being a terrorist attack; the September 11 attacks couldn't possibly have achieved bin Laden's avowed goals.)
What's your definition of "terrorist attack" that doesn't apply to the January 6 attack?
Cruz showed the cut of his jib in 2016.
On to the next bum of the month.
It's skeevy politicians all the way down, Wince. I admire your confession being fooled by a beard. He's your Bernie Sanders then.
BLM and antifa tried to seal federal agents inside a building and set it on fire.
They distributed frozen bottles of water and styrofoam cups filled with cement. They set fires and looted buildings. They did all this in order to deliberately scare local governments into acceding to their demands. That is far more worthy of being called "terrorism" than a couple of idiots parading through the capitol building and sitting in Nancy Pelosi's chair.
Cruz was pretty shook up that day. He thought he heard banjos.
Cruz is academically smart but he has a crappy political IQ. He constantly says and does stupid things as a politician. That is the explanation. He would have been better off as a judge.
Cruz's problem is that his entire career seems tailored for political advancement. He's no doubt a very smart dude, but when your life is focused on doing whatever is necessary to pretty up your resume for higher office, you lose some of the intestinal fortitude to say or do unpopular things.
I generally agree with SAGOLDIE. I always thought the hallmark of terrorism was an intent to kill innocent civilians. Hence the general population is terrorized. 1/6 was not a terrorist attack. Of course 9/11 was. Once you get away from that narrow definition the terms starts to become less useful and more political and very different things become conflated.
Comparing the two events is not a helpful exercise. They were both really bad. But if I had to, then hands down 9/11 was worse because thousands of innocents died horrible deaths. People who say 1/6 was worse are overreaching and trying to take political advantage of the situation. But that's what politicians and their zealot supporters do. I imagine many on the right - including people here - called the riots in 2020 acts of terrorism.
For 1/6, I think "domestic violent extremist" is a good term for those who were physically violent. Whether reasonable or not, they sincerely thought that through violence they could keep Trump in power. Rambunctious tourists doesn't cut it. Antifa is also a DVE organization. Same with the violent wing of the BLM movement.
But I imagine terrorism is defined in the law somewhere so if you use the legal definition you really shouldn't be criticized.
For once, I agree with Drago. Cruz is a remarkably soulless and cynical politician. He wants to piggy back on Trump's popularity, but he lack's Trumps charisma. Also, as appalled as I often am by Trump, I don't doubt his sincerity for a minute. Cruz, on the other hand, is never sincere.
Ann alhouse said...
"We need and value our protesters in America. Yes, sometimes, some protesters go too far. They get violent. They break into buildings. But big protests are not terrorist attacks. I can understand the motivation to pressure people to stay home and not even appear in a protest lest they be deemed to participate in terrorism. That's a contemptible motivation. "
Excellent.
that any primary will be sufficient to see him off after this disastrous mistake.
Was is someone here yesterday suggesting Cruz will try to lay low while the Trump/DeSantis candidates beat themselves silly into defeat?
The over-the -top rhetoric from the left on the INSURRECTION! and worse than 9/11! Terror! ..is so revealing. I like Ted CRuz and I'm disappointed he didn't try harder to walk the line.
A summer of billions in damage by BLM and Antifa-nazi - Media/Dems got nothing to say.
Sorry Ted but this puts you in the Lindsay Graham edge of the go along to get along wing of the Republican Party. Not quite so useless as Paul Ryan but less unctuous than Lizard Cheney. Bad territory. I prefer the Cotton wing which is smaller but decidedly more consistently conservative.
What's your definition of "terrorist attack" that doesn't apply to the January 6 attack?
1/7/22, 7:56 AM
If January 6th was a terrorist attack, then so was the Kavenaugh riot when they were outside the locked doors banging on them trying to stop the vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czWtkXpdiF8
Does he have political ambitions which require him to make a show of dumping his conservative base?
hell to the YEAH! And, he has now Locked Up the Lizard Cheney demographic of the democrat party!
That's like TWO votes, nationwide (assuming her dad is still alive in nov)
"the especially destructive political goal of trying to undo the results of an American election."
Pardon me for being so bold, but, That's almost laughable.
Did the so called terrorists get close to stopping Biden from becoming president? Not at all. Not even close. It was a ridiculous disruption in the process.
Were hostages taken - with demands?
These "terrorists!" walked through un-locked doors. It was stupid - but they didn't even come close to hurting A single holy politician.
Not to mention the Inaugeration of Donald Trump. Be careful what you call things, because we can pin them right back on your side.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbnEiTsiqtA
oh wait--- AOC was almost raped by an angry mob of FBI agents.
I like Cruz, but when this all started-- when Trump supporters were attacked by a violent mob in Chicago in March 2016, Cruz jumped in to criticize Trump for having a campaign based on angry supporters NPR LINK
Later, when it became clear Cruz wouldn't get the GOP nomination, he became more supportive of Trump and Trump supporters.
BUT, to criticize GOP voters for being attacked in Chicago was craven, and Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio all did it. We later learned these mobs were part of the Democrat's campaign infrastructure, including BLM. But the way the GOP responded was a good indication to the Democrats that violence against Trump would be tolerated, because Trump would be blamed.
We saw that play out all summer of 2020. Violence against *everyone* was tolerated, but attacks against the White House and Federal Buildings was smiled upon.
So I don't know what happened January 6. I know who has a history of violent protests, and planning and executing violent protests. I know who had been perpetrating them for several years by then. I know who has been arrested prior to political conventions with buckets of human waste stored up for sloshing on people. I know who thought women going up front would save the mob from getting shot by security. I know who went into private areas of the Capitol to tell Senators to change their vote. I know who had been interrupting hearings with fake blood-stained hands to disrupt the procedure. What I don't know is if a bunch of right-wingers decided it was their turn, or if it was the same informant-esque people who stir up trouble everywhere.
It wasn't acceptable, but it wasn't extraordinary. The Capitol building should have better security than just having windows that can be smashed with fire extinguishers and interior doors to offices that can be left open when unattended. But Nancy Pelosi wasn't in more danger that day than the small business owner in Kenosha a few months before.
We need and value our protesters in America.
Who is "we"?
This akin to "America was founded on protests. Nothing more American than protests. Protesting is our most sacred right".
Bull.
A protest is not always a "redress of grievances", which is a sacred American right. A protest indicates something has gone awry. A breakdown in everyday civil society. A protest can be a noble endeavor just as it can be evil in nature. Motive and circumstances matter.
As Norm Macdonald said, ah that day when the terrorist respected the velvet roles in the capital.
Why are we sending troops to fight in foreign lands if all you need to destroy our democracy is a fire extinguisher and some flag poles?
CBS Buries Poll Results Showing Most Americans Of Both Parties Think Jan 6 Was ‘A Protest That Went Too Far.’
If only Americans would learn to string words together meaningfully >>> country would be so much better off and children would grow up intelligent and productive.
Wow. Cruz got red-pilled - that's the only explanation I can see. He wasn't along: A lot of Americans were shocked and hurt by idiots invading the Capitol, a place for which they have a lot of ingrained respect.
Over the last year, almost all of them have realized that they are being used, that their attitude is being abused.
It's kinda similar to what happened to many of us about Iraq and Afghanistan. We trusted the military, and it took a long while for us to realize that it had been suborned by a corporate industrial complex that was using us and abusing our attitude. By now we don't have that attitude anymore.
I wonder if Cruz can recover from this debacle. He needed to do something that he hasn't (yet) done: Admit that his initial take was dead wrong and apologize for it to the people he was insulting. Not just for "a poor choice of language".
Also, as appalled as I often am by Trump, I don't doubt his sincerity for a minute. Cruz, on the other hand, is never sincere.
There is a Nixonian quality to Ted.
BTW, Nixon was mostly a RINO. He was on the fence between declaring as a Dem or Rep. His primary conservative credential was opposing communism. Given that he ran for Congress a few years after WWII, that is what any sane and reasonably intelligent person would do.
John Althouse Cohen said...
What's your definition of "terrorist attack" that doesn't apply to the January 6 attack?
The problem for the leftists is they don't really like Biden. They know he is embarrassing and pathetic.
They have to cling to something though.
It is a tribal identity issue. They just have to be superior to those icky people in the other tribe. Any justification will do.
let me see : terrorists attempt to instill terror in targets.
if targets feel terrorized = terrorists have succeeded.
so Ted Cruz and others in THE CAPITOL felt terror on 6JAN2021 = there were terrorists present in CAPITOL >>>> QED how emotional projection works
please note : no one felt it fit to seize the moment to come down and talk to the people wandering CAPITOL
John Althouse Cohen writes, "Not all "big protests" are terrorist attacks. But if they use lawless violence for a political goal, they could be terrorist attacks."
Could? Why the weasel word if you know what you're talking about?
All protests, large and small, have political goals. Sometimes protestors get unruly -- a window is broken, a cop car is trashed -- these things are unlawful. Furthermore, among the idiocrats, violence has a conveniently meanless meaning. Are unruly protests terrorist acts? (Hint: Don't use the word lawless unless weaseling somehow servers your goals.) Are you seriously suggesting any protest that anyone can perceive as violent to any degree is terrorism? If so, John Althouse Cohen will find himself splitting hairs so often that people will think he's opened a barbershop.
"What's your definition of [sic] "terrorist attack" that doesn't apply to the January 6 attack?"
Absurd. Isn't it painfully evident that you're definitions are too ill-formed to demand any refutation? They refute themselves automatically. Your mother has set an excellent example of forensic clarity. Don't make yourself a laughing stock.
He can really read the room. Needs to visit different rooms.
Focusing on that one word is great distraction from prospect of a massive setup.
Tucker asked about Ray Epps but the larger concern was basically skipped over in that frenetic exchange.
I've listened to many of Ted Cruz's "Verdict" podcast. He has used the term "terrorist attack" in a consistent manner in that past even in regards to January 6th. He's done it previously without a definition, but what I heard would probably fit JAC's definition and not Cruz's one of Tucker Carlson. The problem with JAC and Ted's definition is wendybar's counter. Cruz never referred to the protests of the Kavanaugh hearing as terrorist attacks. If Cruz all along meant attack on police, then I think his definition is shit, because it would exclude the many terrorist attacks that happened only to civilians.
I'm a Ted Cruz voter and, obviously by listening to his podcasts, a bit of a follower. His statement on 5 January lost me. I cringed during the podcasts when he used the terms, but within his podcast he had the time to provide all the context. I thought it misguided, but his normal political idea of trying to reach across the aisle. Making a statement the day before Democrat grandstanding that supports the grandstanding is dumb. Among the dumb ideas is exactly as Althouse describes, it pressures the right not to protest.
8 Times Left-Wing Protesters Broke Into Government Buildings And Assaulted Democracy
"Self-absorbed congressional Democrats held a group therapy session on Capitol Hill on Thursday as they work tirelessly to immortalize Jan. 6 as an annual day of doom, but the rest of us are old enough to remember a few more times when riots and protests overwhelmed government buildings with no such theatrical response."
More than a few times, actually. The 2020 summer of rage was more or less “incited” by these same top Democrats, who race-baited as if their lives depended on it, and even our vice president, who helped bail violent rioters out of jail. It featured a number of these attacks on the government (which strangely weren’t called attacks on democracy at the time)."
"What's your definition of "terrorist attack" that doesn't apply to the January 6 attack?"
As I've been saying since the event, I need some tracing back to some kind of plan or organization that the people represent and that meant to use violence not just incidentally as they went into the building to try to disrupt the proceedings — like the Wisconsin protesters or, say, Code Pink — but to instill fear in onlookers and to leverage their force into something larger.
I keep waiting for the evidence of that. When I look at what has been revealed so far, it seems that a lot of Trump supporters came on their own motivation to be at a rally where Trump would speak and they'd show their support. Probably many of them believed — like the Russian collusion believers in 2016 and beyond — that something was very wrong with the election and they wanted to demonstrate their displeasure or demand for some deeper investigation. Some of them were like the Pussy Hat demonstrators in 2017, wanting to display their rejection of the new President.
I don't know how the idea of breaking into the Capitol developed. Some people fought their way into the building, not displaying weapons. No guns. Not much evidence of pre-planning. A lot of people followed in once the building was open. That was dumb and sheeplike more than "terrorist."
I would preserve a tighter meaning for terrorist. If you want to say the Jan. 6th incident, as we saw it before our eyes, was a terrorist attack, then the label is too broad and it becomes an insult that you can use as it suits your partisan goals. To me, street crime is more terrorist than what we saw on January 6th, because it scares people and forces us to limit our actions out of fear.
remember when the hack-D covered this?
Andy Ngô ��️��
@MrAndyNgo
Antifa set fire to the federal courthouse in downtown Portland. There are people inside.
Me neither.
'Carlson did not let up. That's impressive.'
There isn't a single person in the lefty media who would call out a politician on the left like this.
They just kiss ass and further the cause.
@Ann 9:21
Well stated.
oh wait--- AOC was almost raped by an angry mob of FBI agents.
That's cause she wouldn't date them.
Hear!! Hear!! Ann!! I agree!!
"I don't know how the idea of breaking into the Capitol developed. "
Video of Ray Epps goading attendees to do just that.
By the way, its easy to forget there were speakers scheduled and a preshow etc.
I would preserve a tighter meaning for terrorist.
I am pleased to see this written here. If we tolerate demagoguery we get demagoguery. The left is using this opportunity to divide the nation and create enemies between the populace in order to garner more power. They are not trying to win the hearts and minds of people through policies and governance, but through fear and division.
Don't let your (not directed at Althouse) partisanship blind you to the fact that they are the baddies. Be willing to keep your own house clean, because some day the world will look back and you will be ashamed of what you stood behind.
A lot of people followed in once the building was open. That was dumb and sheeplike more than "terrorist."
A lot of people walked in, in an orderly fashion when the Capitol Police removed the barricades and waived them in. A lot of people walked into the Capitol long after the initial, violent breaches, assuming it was open to the public having no idea what had transpired.
Sheep-like? No.
Dumb? only in respect to not knowing it was a set-up. A set-up Trump stupidly gave Pelosi weeks to plan.
Drago at 7:56 AM
Cruz just allowed the DC Beltway crew to shove him over the same cliff that they forced Scott Walker over in 2016.
Scott Walker...a successful populist outside of DC governor...perfect for 2016...but what does Walker do? Hire DC Consultants...and POOF!
Never heard from again.
A very astute comparison.
'Not much evidence of pre-planning.'
There was a LOT of pre-planning all right.
Just not by the protesters...
in my inbox today:
https://www.techlearning.com/news/5-ways-to-discuss-the-capitol-riot-with-your-students
6 Ways to Discuss the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot with Your Students
3. Consider Discussing the Event in any Class
This discussion will come naturally to civics, social studies, and history classes, but the topic shouldn’t be left to the humanities educators alone. “I don't think it's solely the responsibility of the social studies teacher,” said Ben-Porath. “I really think that a math educator, a science educator, the people who are in the classroom or virtual classroom today, have a responsibility to make even a limited 15-minute portion of the class available to students to discuss it.”
Those with a propensity to listen to MSM talking points, absorb all that over-wrought hysteric rhetoric and internalize it all, and make it all a reasonable truth.
Imagine getting arresting for walking into the "people's house"...
(yeah -the capitol is the people's house - not The Temple to Nancy... ) and your only crime was walking thru an unlocked door, standing there, and taking a few photos.
Imagine - your country and its leaders and media and the judicial system - treating you like a terrorist.
Ann Althouse at 9:21 AM
As I've been saying since the event, I need some tracing back to some kind of plan or organization that the people represent and that meant to use violence not just incidentally as they went into the building to try to disrupt the proceedings — like the Wisconsin protesters or, say, Code Pink — but to instill fear in onlookers and to leverage their force into something larger. ...
I would preserve a tighter meaning for terrorist. If you want to say the Jan. 6th incident, as we saw it before our eyes, was a terrorist attack, then the label is too broad and it becomes an insult that you can use as it suits your partisan goals. ....
Well stated!
" If you want to say the Jan. 6th incident, as we saw it before our eyes, was a terrorist attack, then the label is too broad and it becomes an insult that you can use as it suits your partisan goals." Very true. And exactly what the left wing has done with the term "racism". And what the right has done to the term "communist". But, with the likes of Angela Davis and Bill Ayers holding comfortable university positions, communist has clearly lost all its sting.
Mr Wibble: "Cruz's problem is that his entire career seems tailored for political advancement. He's no doubt a very smart dude, but when your life is focused on doing whatever is necessary to pretty up your resume for higher office, you lose some of the intestinal fortitude to say or do unpopular things."
Cruz has been coopted to a large extent. Is he conservative? Of course. But is he strong enough to even try to stand up to the forces at play that dominate the society now?
Not. A. Chance.
Which is very similar to Rubio, whose every position boils down to some bizarre political consultant class triangulation which is added to his personal story.
Rubio is, and has been for quite a while, a rudderless blow dried-politician who has long thought he could ride his personal latino story to higher office and tacks and jibes with the political winds (hey, 2 sailing metaphors in one post! And they said it couldn't be done!).
This is why Rubio has no core base. What does he believe?
Well, by now, "little Marco" is toast on a national level, but should still be able to eke out a couple more Senate wins. Perhaps even a governorship win if/when DeSantis moves up and out.
But that's it. A republican machine politician with no core following, and certainly no class of voters that would crawl over broken glass to vote for him.
Cruz and Marco are peas in a pod, which Cruz at the 'deeper end" of the pod in terms of IQ.
Of course, the near 50% Fed/informant ratio in Whitmer kidnapping case should be considered when parsing 1/6 info.
You can bet defense is watching that case.
Cruz saw a breach in the wall blocking his path to the 2024 nomination. But Carlson stepped into it. Cruz took an unusual tactic to clear Carlson. Didn't seem to work very well.
I think this brouhaha can be summed up in four little words:
Cruz screwed the pooch.
Ted Cruz is a weasel.
But if they use lawless violence for a political goal, they could be terrorist attacks. The Capitol riot did use lawless violence for a political goal
The agents provocateur certainly did but they were not Trump supporters. Someday we might learn the truth but I am not holding my breath.
I do think it was a mistake by Trump to hold that rally that day. It played right into Pelosi's hands after she and the lefty Mayor had refused national guard help. It was a setup and he should have seen that. Trump was always badly served by the Republican Party. Perot would have had the same problem; too honest.
Justice will be served when the Red Queen loses her head.
we had hopes for cruz
but he threw it all away
the damn bearded clam
Who were the worst actors that day? Isn't it odd we don't hear about them?
Defining terrorism is easy- terrorism's direct purpose is to kill people, innocent and non-innocent alike. The January 6th protests wasn't terrorism, full stop. Most of the George Floyd protests also were not terrorism, but many of them were far worse riots than the January 6th riot was, and caused far more damage to both property and people, and thus are more aptly described as terrorism than the January 6th protest, though I would not use that label myself. The protests in D.C. over George Floyd were far more terrifying and damaging than the ones over the election, but that is memory-holed apparently.
I gave an example of a real insurrection yesterday in these threads- what happened in Almaty yesterday and the day before. If you can't see the difference between that an the January 6th protest/riot, then you aren't worth bothering with any longer.
Best take on the whole mess I've seen is from Larry Correia:
"Jan 6th is the biggest threat do democracy EVAR. When the most heavily armed demographic in the world didn't bring any guns to a coup, and the only person who got shot was an unarmed woman, and she was killed by the kind of super cop who leaves his Glock in the toilet."
Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...
Those with a propensity to listen to MSM talking points, absorb all that over-wrought hysteric rhetoric and internalize it all, and make it all a reasonable truth.
Imagine getting arresting for walking into the "people's house"...
-------
I have been asking forever >>> how can there be trespass on a commons?
Yancey Ward said...
Defining terrorism is easy- terrorism's direct purpose is to kill people, innocent and non-innocent alike.
A little off.
The purpose is to instill fear and terror in a population.
Killing people is an effective way to do this.
Susanne Boyland. Ashli Babbit.
Throwing people in prison and torturing them is another.
It's an interesting exercise to isolate the features of terrorism. I proceed by trying to think of instances of terrorism, and to subjectively identify the things that make them seem like terrorism to me.
First, there has to be a plan for action. Second, the action must be gratuitously cruel. Third, it must inflict grievous harm upon relatively innocent individuals, i.e., people with little or no relation the grievance (Olympic athletes, office workers, nightclub goers, concert attendees).
These seem to me to be the three elements that generate terror.
Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a terrorist. He was an assassin. The people who murdered the French journalists of the magazine that had the picture of the religious figure were not terrorists, they were political assassins.
You can't have terrorism without terror, and a bunch of unarmed, gullible, dopes, who should have been stopped outside the Capitol, don't strike terror in any rational heart.
“it still wouldn't justify calling the January 6th incident a terrorist attack, only calling a subset of the protesters terrorists.”
And the rest were very fine people.
The hate crimes movement deliberately transformed the definition of terrorism through training and written guides for prosecutors, police, and the state Bureaus of Investigation tasked with reporting to the DOJ and FBI. Suddenly, a child drawing a picture of a gun, or even the mere words "TrumpHit**r" spray painted on a rock are reported nationally as acts of domestic terrorism. Ironically,in the second case, as it was likely spray painted by a Trump hater, it was counted in the all important stats as the act of a fascist Trump supporter.
Other language was changed too. A Muslim family in Sarasota setting fire to their garage door -- remember, it's always the garage door -- were counted as victims of both terrorism and hate crime. But the guy who raped and killed 51 women is neither hate criminal nor terrorist. He's also likely to be released in six years. Major Hasan is neither hate criminal nor terrorist. Five blacks roughing up Hasidic Jews and robbing them are prosecuted under the hate crime law, while 50 women sexually assaulted at the Puerto Rican Parade on the very same day aren't even counted as crime victims, let alone victims of random hate crime despite slurs, penetration, whirlpooling gang rape, and being targeted as women. If they were gay or transvestite, however, all those crimes would be tried and tried as hate crimes.
So we females have been used to this type of disparity for decades.
The important point is that these words have no set legal meanings. It's all activist claptrap warping law enforcement. The same is why multiple minorities targeting whites are categorized as gang crime, while the opposite fly to the front page and are prosecuted as hate crime.
Incidentally, Oswald was a terrorist assassin for Russia. But technically he was a murderer.
Left Bank: "And the rest were very fine people."
With the collapse of his desperately needed insurrection Big Lie, russia collusion truther Left Bank retreats to a reference of another debunked lefty lie.
Any hoax in a storm, eh Left Bank?
Tell us more about Kyle Rittenhouse viciously crossing sacred state lines.
Any attack on police is an attack on the state. So AOC types and ANTIFA are the most prolific assailants against the state this year --and every other year for the last five decades. Remember Foster and Laurie?
Progressives would have nothing, if they didn't have their lies and hoaxes Drago.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday refused to condemn protesters who toppled a statue of Christoper Columbus in her hometown of Baltimore before tossing it in a nearby harbor, blowing it off by saying, “People will do what they do.”"
It's things like this^^^^ that make us point and laugh at this dog and pony show Nancy put on yesterday....
Um, Nancy Pelosi's hometown is not Baltimore.
Narayanan said...
"please note : no one felt it fit to seize the moment to come down and talk to the people wandering CAPITOL" --
This. So much this. If just one congress critter had had the testicular fortitude to grab a bull horn that day, stand outside, and engage the protesters - they would have have been the next president. Unfortunately, none of the current group has that kind of courage.
I've never really understood why people think so much of Ted Cruz. He talks a good game?
Just what has he actually accomplished during his time in office?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
“it still wouldn't justify calling the January 6th incident a terrorist attack, only calling a subset of the protesters terrorists.”
And the rest were very fine people.
You are running out of space to lie.
Nobody is buying any of it anymore.
It must sound hollow even to you by now.
Whatever else you can say about Tucker, no other host would have kept after a wormtongue senator like he did.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন