Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on September 25, 2025, 09:04:06 PM
-
Breaking within the hour….
The FBI secretly deployed more than 250 plainclothes agents to the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 riot, an operation so disorganized it unleashed searing frustrations among many of the FBI's rank-and-file that the bureau had lost its core competencies to "wokeness" and allowed its employees to become “pawns in a political war,” according to an after-action report kept from the public for more than four years
Scores of FBI agents and personnel – many from the bureau’s premier Washington field office (WFO) – sent anonymous complaints to the after-action team detailing how agents were sent into an unsafe scenario without proper safety equipment or the ability to identify themselves readily as armed officers to other police agencies, the report obtained by Just the News shows.
The most persistent complaint was that the bureau during the James Comey and Chris Wray era had become infected with political biases and liberal ideology that treated the protesters from the summer 2020 Black Lives Matter riots far differently than those arrested in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 episode.
“The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously,” one employee wrote in a stinging review. “It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders' perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.”
That agent urged FBI leaders “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”
One agent suggested the problem extended beyond the bureau to D.C. U.S. Attorney's office, indicating a more widespread problem with political bias.
"Currently, the US Attorneys office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions," the agent wrote. "However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone's life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level... it is not our role."
Many of the agents’ feedback focused on the Washington Field Office and its culture. “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that's more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys,” one worker wrote.
Added another: “I wish you all would pay more attention to our safety than what type of masks we wear. If you are going to deploy us to a riot situation, then give us the proper damn safety equipment--helmet, face shield, protective clothing--and training!”
The after-action responses – 50 pages in all – were located by current FBI Director Kash Patel’s team and recently turned over to the House Judiciary Committee and its special subcommittee investigating security failures and weaponization of law enforcement during the Jan. 6 riot.
274 undercover agents embedded in riot , with no safety plans
The document has proven a bombshell to lawmakers, revealing for the first time that the FBI had a total of 274 agents deployed to the Capitol in plainclothes and with guns but no clear safety gear of way to be recognized by other law enforcement agencies working in the chaos of the riot.
You can read the after-action report below:
File
FBI-HJC119-J6IG-000001-000050.pdf
Wray, Patel’s predecessor, steadfastly refused to tell Congress how many if any agents went to the Capitol that day. And a prior DOJ Inspector General Report did not divulge the number, referring only to a SWAT team the bureau sent into the Capitol and having more than two dozen informants in the crowd.
The existence of mass FBI agents at the Capitol on Jan. 6 could also be a problem in many of the cases that were subsequently brought in court. If agents were witnesses at the Capitol and did not disclose it in the subsequent affidavits during prosecutions it could create grounds for defendants to appeal.
The document also reveals for the first time that there were widespread concerns for years inside the bureau – sentiments that boiled over after the FBI began sending SWAT teams to arrest Jan. 6 participants on misdemeanor charges – that the FBI had become biased in favor of liberals and against conservatives.
Despite the pre-existing report, Wray rejected that notion in testimony before Congress. “The idea that I’m biased against conservatives seems somewhat insane to me, given my own personal background,” Wray told Congress in 2023.
“I have found almost invariably, the people screaming the loudest about the politicization of the FBI are themselves the most political, and more often than not, making claims of politicization to advance their own views or goals, and they often don’t know the facts or are choosing to ignore them,” Wray added in an episode of the podcast “FBI Retired Case File Review” that aired the same year.
Agent: “Our response to the Capitol Riot reeks of political bias”
But frontline agents repeatedly raised issues of liberal bias and wokeness in their after-action assessments. The words “politics” or “bias” were mentioned more than a dozen times in responses, and similar sentiments scores of times in the 50 pages.
“Our response to the Capitol Riot reeks of political bias,” one wrote.
Another added: “I wonder if our biases affected our preparedness.”
A third suggested the agents and analysts had become engrossed in the main business of Washington – politics – rather than crime fighting and blamed the bureau’s leadership for the slide.
“We have been used as pawns in a political war, and FBI leadership fell into the trap and has allowed it to happen,” that employee wrote. “We are supposed to call balls and strikes, regardless of political pressure, now we can’t even be trusted to be on the field,” another agent commented.”
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan vowed through a spokesman to get to the bottom of the still-untold secrets of Jan. 6 alongside of the Jan. 6 subcommittee chairman Barry Loudermilk.
“Due to our oversight, Chairman Loudermilk's leadership and Director Patel’s leadership, we continue to discover what exactly happened on Jan. 6,” Jordan’s spokesman Russell Dye told Just the News.
"During the more than two years I have been investigating the events of January 6, I have seen evidence that suggests potential political bias within agencies that may have influenced their actions before, during, and after the events of January 6. But this report is more damning than anyone could have imagined and opens up even more questions," Loudermilk told Just the News.
"Why is Congress just finding out there were significantly more FBI assets at the Capitol than previously identified? Were the courts that heard cases regarding January 6 made aware these agents were at the Capitol? Were any of the agents tasked to investigate individuals at the Capitol? Were they ever called to testify during the prosecutions of J6 defendants? Did any of the former FBI leaders testify about the additional personnel at the Capitol? These are just a few of the questions my committee will be asking," said the chairman.
The report solves one of the Jan. 6 mysteries: How did the FBI respond when violence began breaking out at the Capitol? Wray previously refused to divulge to Congress how many agents or informants were present during the incident.
“The initial response of having us again respond to a riot by ‘standing the line’ did not seem appropriate because we do not have the gear, equipment, or training for riot control,” one agent said.
“As in June, agents were again deployed onto the streets (specifically around the Capitol) and simply told to stand behind MPD. No other direction. When asked specifically what they were supposed to do or who to check in with, they were told simply that management said to go there and there was no answer,” another said. “FBI agents do not have training for, nor equipment for, riot control.”
Agents complained of politically-motivated "double standard"
The report also revealed agents strongly disagreed with how they were deployed and how cases were pursued after that day, seeing a double standard.
“The actions on January 6, 2021 were absolutely despicable and unacceptable in a civilized society. What is even more unacceptable was the hypocrisy displayed by the FBI and its leadership in their attempt to go after those involved in the Capitol Riots, while we as agents, watched cities burn across America during the summer of 2020,” one agent said.
“The conspiracy to commit crimes at the Capitol on January 6th, were also committed by bad actors during the summer riots of 2020 leading up to the election on November 3, 2020. Agents stood by on the ground in Washington, D.C. and observed stores being looted, burned, and ripped of anything of value,” the agent wrote.
“Even worse, officers were assaulted in the streets in broad daylight with cameras rolling, and yet our response then was nothing like the Capitol Riots response on and after January 6, 2021. I do not recall a single instance where the FBI, specifically FBI WFO, made any attempt to put the resources behind the summer riots of 2020, as they did during the Capitol Riots,” the agent explained.
The scathing comments from Washington Field Office agents assessing their own bureau’s work that day were not included in an Office of Inspector General report reviewing the FBI’s performance in the lead up to and during the Jan. 6 electoral certification. That report only confirmed that there were “several hundred” agents deployed, but provided no further detail about the challenges they faced or their complaints.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/fbi-bombshell-274-agents-sent-capitol-j6-many-later-complained-they-were-political?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost
-
LMFAO.
-
Based on a December 2024 report by the Department of Justice Inspector General, the claim that 250 federal agents were at the January 6 Capitol riot is false. The report found that there were no undercover FBI employees in the crowd or at the Capitol that day. :D :D :D :D
-
update 26 trumptard FBI agents were there acting on their own accord, so you are 10 percent correct. ;)
-
&t=158s Yeah Coach these guys weren't trying to incite a riot, no not them. What happened to the ANTIFA theory. ??? ??? ??? ???
-
Coach, funk disagrees and says you are posting debunked info.
He worked hard on finding youtube videos, so it would be common courtesy to let us know if this was, in fact, debunked in 2024 as he said.
-
https://x.com/fbidirectorkash/status/1971579597293490285?s=46
-
Coach, funk disagrees and says you are posting debunked info.
He worked hard on finding youtube videos, so it would be common courtesy to let us know if this was, in fact, debunked in 2024 as he said.
That’s all he does. Notice how he doesn’t bring up the literally over 500 insurrections by the left that’s causing cities to burn and has killed civilians and cops in the process?
-
Did Sexual Assault Allegations Against Donald Trump Only Start With the 2016 Election? AS PER SNOPES A VERY TRUSTED SOURCE.
Although many women accused then-candidate Trump of sexual assault during the 2016 election, that wasn't the first time that he faced these sorts of allegations.
Dan Evon
Published Dec. 14, 2017
Claim:
Donald Trump was not accused of sexual assault until he ran for President in 2016.
Rating:
False
False
About this rating
On 7 October 2016, The Washington Post released audio of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump having a lewd conversation with Access Hollywood's Billy Bush in 2005. In it, Trump can be heard making several comments, such as "I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything" and "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” Many interpreted these comments to be admissions of sexual assault.
More than a dozen women came forward in the aftermath of the tape's release with stories of the presidential candidate sexually assaulting them. Among his accusers were a contestant in a pageant he runs and a former contestant on his reality show. One prominent accusation during that time came from a woman who sued saying when she was 13 Trump allegedly solicited her for sex acts at a sex party in 1994.
In an apparent attempt to discredit these women and their stories, the Facebook page "Capitalists" posted a meme in November 2016 claiming that Trump had never been accused of sexual assault until he started campaigning against Hillary Clinton:
This meme was recirculated in December 2017 after three of Trump's accusers joined together to call on congress to launch a bipartisan investigation into the matter. Although an official investigation has not been launched as of this writing, lawmakers such as Kristin Gillibrand have also started pushing for an investigation into Trump's alleged sexual misconduct.
Although Trump had toyed with running for president prior to the most recent election, the meme specifies "ran against Hillary." Trump formally announced that he was running for president against her in June 2015. (Clinton announced in April of that year.)
Although the majority of the 19 women accusing Trump of sexual assault did so publicly for the first time after this date, at least two women accused Trump of sexual assault before the start of his 2016 presidential campaign.
Ivana Trump's Court Deposition in 1989:
Ivana Trump, Donald's first wife, used the word "rape" under oath during a court deposition to describe an alleged violent sexual encounter with her soon-to-be ex-husband. Ivana's testimony was described in the 1993 book Lost Tycoon by Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III:
After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.
“Your fucking doctor has ruined me!” Trump cried.
What followed was a “violent assault,” according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana’s arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.
“Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified… It is a violent assault,” Hurt writes. “According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, ‘he raped me.'"
Ivana Trump released a statement shortly before this book was published to clarify that although she did truly use the word "rape" during her deposition, she did not mean it in a "literal" or "criminal sense":
When Lost Tycoon was about to be printed, Donald Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, which was posted on the first page of the book. In it, Ivana confirms that she had “felt violated” and that she had stated that her husband had raped her during a divorce deposition. But Ivana sought to soften her earlier statement.
“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “- n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”
The statement, according to a “Notice to the Reader” in the book, “does not contradict or invalidate any information contained in this book.”
According to a 1990 article from The New York Times, Ivana ultimately cited "cruel and inhuman treatment by Mr. Trump" as grounds for the divorce.
Jill Harth's Lawsuit in 1997:
Jill Harth, who at the time went by Jill Harth Houraney, filed a lawsuit in 1997 in which she accused Trump, among other things, of attempted rape.
Harth's 12-page complaint listed several incidents in which Trump allegedly sexually assaulted her. Harth claimed that Trump treated her like a sexual object, expressed his interest to exploit her as a sex slave, demanded that she sleep with him, groped her during a business dinner party, and attempted to rape her:
After Trump business associates left, the defendant (Trump) over the plaintiff’s (Harth's) objections forcibly prevented plaintiff from leaving and forcibly removed plaintiff to a bedroom, whereupon defendant subjected plaintiff to defendant’s unwanted sexual advances, which included touching of plaintiff’s private parts in an act constituting attempted “rape.”
Harth also provided several accounts of Trump mistreating other women.
Trump denied the allegations. According to Law and Crime, the lawsuit was "voluntarily dismissed" but “without prejudice,” meaning that Harth could have decided to refile the lawsuit at a later date.
Relying on anonymous sources, the New York Daily News reported at the time that the matter ended with a six-figure payout:
The case was due to go to trial on July 17 in Manhattan Federal Court, but yesterday sources familiar with the deal said Trump had agreed to a six-figure payout. One source described the settlement as "peanuts. Just their legal fees. Donald is very happy.
Widespread Accusations of Sexism:
In addition to these two alleged incidents of forced sexual contact, the President was also repeatedly accused of sexism before he ran against Hillary Clinton. Although the following incidents focus on sexism and not necessarily sexual assault, they are worth mentioning as the meme suggests that Trump's alleged poor treatment of women didn't begin until the 2016 election.
Former beauty queen Carrie Prejean described how contestants were subjected to the "Trump Rule," a pre-contest ritual in which Trump and his staff would evaluate the contestants based on appearance, in her 2009 book:
“Many of the girls found this exercise humiliating,” Prejean wrote. “Some of the girls were sobbing backstage after [Trump] left, devastated to have failed even before the competition really began . . . even those of us who were among the chosen couldn’t feel very good about it — it was as though we had been stripped bare.”
In 2011, the Washington Post used the "Trump Rule" as a jumping off point to list several other instances that allegedly displayed Trump's sexism:
The world was reminded of the Trump Rule earlier this month, when New York Times columnist Gail Collins published a piece detailing how “The Donald,” in a fit of pique worthy of gossip blogger Perez Hilton, once sent her a copy of her column with the words “Face of a Dog!” scrawled on top of her picture. Collins, it should be noted, is just one of many targets of Trump’s gender-specific hostility: Last year, the master media manipulator was accused of asking the men on “The Apprentice” to rate their female peers, based on appearance, just one of a number of sexist decisions he’s made over the show’s 11 seasons. (“I bet you make a great wife,” one contestant says he told her in 2005.)
No one is above his reproach. In 2007, commenting on a spat Angelina Jolie was having with her father, Jon Voight, Trump disparaged the actress’s sexual history (“she’s been with so many guys”) and told Larry King, “I just don’t even find her attractive.”
Not that Trump cares. “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of [expletive],” he told a writer for Esquire in 1991.
Trump was also accused of of sexist practices when employees of the Trump National Golf Club filed a a class action lawsuit in 2008. Although the bulk of the lawsuit dealt with the club's break policies, unpaid reimbursements, and supervisors receiving tips, Lucy Messerschmidt, who was employed as a host at one of the club's restaurants, said that she would be taken off shifts when Trump was on the premises because he liked to see "fresh faces" and "young girls." The Los Angeles Times reported:
“Donald Trump always wanted good looking women working at the club,” said Sue Kwiatkowski, a restaurant manager at the club until 2009, in a declaration. "I know this because one time he took me aside and said, ‘I want you to get some good looking hostesses here. People like to see good looking people when they come in.’ ”
As a result, Kwiatkowski said, "I and the other managers always tried to have our most attractive hostesses working when Mr. Trump was in town and going to be on the premises."
The lawsuit was settled in 2013 when the club agreed, without admitting wrongdoing, to pay $475,000 to the employees.
Strength in numbers:
This meme makes the demonstrably false claim that President Trump was never accused of sexual assault prior to the 2016 election. He was accused of sexual assault during a 1989 court deposition, and again in 1997 lawsuit.
It's worth noting that although it's true that the majority of sexual assault claims levied against the president weren't made public until the 2016 election, this doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's accusers were politically motivated, as suggested by the meme.
Victims of sexual assault may decide to keep their stories private for many reasons. In light of the allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, for instance, many women have said that they didn't initially come forward because they were afraid of how it would affect their careers and personal lives. A 2003 study has shown that "75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment faced some form of retaliation.” In addition to fearing the repercussions of accusing a powerful person of sexual assault, many victims wrestle with the simple fact that the public may not believe their story.
But as more and more women came forward in 2017 to accuse politicians, producers, and businessman of sexually assault, and more importantly, story after story about those men getting fired, resigning, or simply being shunned, the prospect of coming forward became more plausible for some. Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), an anti-sexual-violence group, noted that when one woman comes forward to speak about sexual abuse, other victims may find the courage to do the same:
“The more cases like Weinstein, where victims are able to see that the community is on their side and is willing to believe them when they come forward, I think that has a long-term positive impact and encourages many more people to come forward,” said Scott Berkowitz, president of the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN), an anti-sexual-violence group.
Sonia Ossorio, president of the National Organization for Women–New York, reiterated this sentiment in an interview with Self:
"When one woman breaks the silence, others are empowered to tell their [stories] [...] Together those stories paint the full picture and create an environment where victims are more likely to be believed."
In Trump's case, the majority of women accusing him of sexual assault came forward in October 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape was released. At the time, the language of the tape was being condemned by political parties on both sides of the aisle, and public opinion of the candidate appeared to take a hit. It's in this climate that most of Trump's sexual accusers came forward with their stories.
This meme is strikingly similar to another claim we debunked which argued that President Trump was never accused of being racist until he ran for president.
As with that declaration of innocence, however, we found that these accusations of racism were not the political manifestations of a contentious election. In fact, Trump has faced legal action in regard to discrimination laws and was accused of making racist remarks by former employees, committee members, and protesters long before his successful presidential bid in 2016.
President Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by nearly 20 women. Although the majority of those accusations were made public after the start of his 2016 presidential campaign, at least two of those accusations were made long before Trump had a career in politics.
-
This is the kind of guy coach worships in his eyes the trumpster can do no wrong and never spreads falsehoods. they're eating the cats ....... windmills cause cancer the election was stolen and on and on ad nauseum. AND BEFORE YOU SAY WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL POST , IT DOES BECAUSE THIS IS THE LATEST DISTRACTION FOR A TIRED NATION TO FORGET THE EPSTEIN FILES. I know Trump only doesn't want to release them because his good buddy Bill Clinton might be in them.
-
That’s all he does. Notice how he doesn’t bring up the literally over 500 insurrections by the left that’s causing cities to burn and has killed civilians and cops in the process?
the great uniter bringing the nation together. What's the spin on this one.
-
Did Sexual Assault Allegations Against Donald Trump Only Start With the 2016 Election? AS PER SNOPES A VERY TRUSTED SOURCE.
Last time Coach posted something from snopes Prime posted some google info that said snopes couldn't be trusted.
-
Last time Coach posted something from snopes Prime posted some google info that said snopes couldn't be trusted.
I was told by a Trumptard that you should trust SNOPES. Who can we really trust, seriously. ??? ??? ??? ??? Would you buy a used car from the man pic'd below.
-
An e-mail I got today from my pillow guy as a loyal republican. Always looking to Help a guy out.
-
An e-mail I got today from my pillow guy as a loyal republican. Always looking to Help a guy out.
Good. Capitalism is treating him well
-
That’s all he does. Notice how he doesn’t bring up the literally over 500 insurrections by the left that’s causing cities to burn and has killed civilians and cops in the process?
Insurrection by whose definition? Yours?
-
I was told by a Trumptard that you should trust SNOPES. Who can we really trust, seriously. ??? ??? ??? ??? Would you buy a used car from the man pic'd below.
Who was this "Trumptard" that told you to trust snopes?
-
Last time Coach posted something from snopes Prime posted some google info that said snopes couldn't be trusted.
Did I? I don't recall posting any such comment about Snopes' trustworthiness.
-
Did I? I don't recall posting an such comment about Snopes' trustworthiness.
I stand erected!!
Did Sexual Assault Allegations Against Donald Trump Only Start With the 2016 Election? AS PER SNOPES A VERY TRUSTED SOURCE.
CAN YOU REALLY TRUST SNOPES, I MEAN THEY ARE BASED IN CALIFORNIA. Snopes.com, founded in 1995 by David and Barbara Mikkelson, is a website focused on fact-checking and debunking urban legends and online rumors. Located in California's San Fernando Valley, the site offers evidence-based analysis of claims. Although Snopes has received criticism regarding its accuracy and potential bias, it remains a resource for online fact-checking, and in 2024, it launched "FactBot," an AI tool.
Mr Funktds51, care to explain?? ::) ::)
Who was this "Trumptard" that told you to trust snopes?
His response I quoted above was towards you, Trumpardian!! ;D
-
Good. Capitalism is treating him well
I heard he wasn't doing too good financially, looking good coach, hope your training is going well.
-
What is a fact today, may not be one tomorrow. Whether something is a fact is based on all current information. Snopes updates its assessments of the facts and publishes corrections when new information emerges or errors are found.
-
Insurrection by whose definition? Yours?
I was being nice. They were actually riots
-
I stand erected!!
Mr Funktds51, care to explain?? ::) ::)
I only trust Joe rogan and Snopes now. they are the true bastions of truth and justice and the AmerIcan way.
-
I was being nice. They were actually riots
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow the government through illegal and unConstitutional means; this almost always involves violence as one of its key elements.
And note that the charge of insurrection does not require that the insurrection succeed (and ironically, an insurrection that DID succeed would probably not incur criminal charges, as new people would then be deciding things).
Furthermore, this is why the charges against Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2020 are so very serious, and why prosecutors have not dropped it. An attempt to violently overthrow the government, or even to urge one’s followers to do so, is a major crime.
As another example, was Hitler’s rise to power an insurrection? Not precisely, but it had some similarities. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany through legal means, but that did not give him anything close to absolute power; that power was claimed only after his own people burned down the Reichstag (the German capitol building) and blamed it on the Communists. He then imposed marital law.
Rioting is an outbreak of violence (generally looting and property destruction) as a way of expressing strong feelings by a crowd, but usually not with the specific intent of overthrowing a government. It is, of course, also illegal because it involves unjustified destruction of property and possibly putting lives in danger.
Civil unrest is like rioting but is a more general state of affairs. Civil unrest means a general break down of the social order but is typically less organized than an insurrection or riot.
-
I was being nice. They were actually riots
How is calling these events insurrections instead of riots is being nice? Is a riot worse than an insurrection? Who knew? Some might call them protests... calling them this might be considered being nice.
-
An insurrection is an attempt to overthrow the government through illegal and unConstitutional means; this almost always involves violence as one of its key elements.
And note that the charge of insurrection does not require that the insurrection succeed (and ironically, an insurrection that DID succeed would probably not incur criminal charges, as new people would then be deciding things).
Furthermore, this is why the charges against Donald Trump on Jan. 6, 2020 are so very serious, and why prosecutors have not dropped it. An attempt to violently overthrow the government, or even to urge one’s followers to do so, is a major crime.
As another example, was Hitler’s rise to power an insurrection? Not precisely, but it had some similarities. Hitler became Chancellor of Germany through legal means, but that did not give him anything close to absolute power; that power was claimed only after his own people burned down the Reichstag (the German capitol building) and blamed it on the Communists. He then imposed marital law.
Rioting is an outbreak of violence (generally looting and property destruction) as a way of expressing strong feelings by a crowd, but usually not with the specific intent of overthrowing a government. It is, of course, also illegal because it involves unjustified destruction of property and possibly putting lives in danger.
Civil unrest is like rioting but is a more general state of affairs. Civil unrest means a general break down of the social order but is typically less organized than an insurrection or riot.
Yeah, the fact you're comparing Trump to a Nazi shows your complete and utter ignorance of any history and you literally parrot anything the left tells you. It's not a wonder why you run away from an actual face to face debate. SET.IT.UP.
-
Yeah, the fact you're comparing Trump to a Nazi shows your complete and utter ignorance of any history and you literally parrot anything the left tells you. It's not a wonder why you run away from an actual face to face debate. SET.IT.UP.
Eerie similarities besides both being Germans.
Both show a monomaniacal approach to politics.
Trump‘s often vulgar denunciation of his opponents’ alleged failures consistently highlights the claim that he alone can fix the problems in public policy and society. That claim finds an analogy in Hitler’s persistent demand that he be the sole leader in Germany.
“Fuehrerprinzip”
One cannot avoid seeing comparable traits in Trump‘s singular assertion of his unique abilities, and the Nazi leader’s insistence on the “Fuehrerprinzip,” the assertion that curing the country’s problems required vesting all power in one leader.
A politician that seeks to be a dictator “but only for a day” is setting the stage to prolong that status indefinitely. Hitler’s dictatorship did not occur instantly when he became German Chancellor in January 1933. Consolidation and perpetuation of his political dominance occurred swiftly in the months that followed.
Stormtroopers — then and now
The Nazi leader relied heavily on the violent, ragtag paramilitary groups that emerged in the wake of Germany’s 1918 defeat. He relied especially on the large number of so-called “storm troopers” mobilized to support the Nazi party as it enlisted millions of voters in the 1920s and 1930s.
No large-scale private militias exist in the United States, but Trump’s friendly stance toward the Proud Boys and others involved in the 2021 assault on the Capitol reveals a parallel inclination to threaten the constitutional order.
Trump has even stated that parts of the constitution may need to be suspended or altered.
That inclination is underscored by the Republican candidate’s constant refrain that any election he loses has to be rigged, that anyone who beats him has to have cheated — a theme that amounts to denying the possibility of the fair elections that are the bedrock of self-government.
Scorched earth policy
Trump’s demonstrated encouragement of the January 2021 uprising against the constitutional change of power bears some resemblance, albeit slight, to Hitler’s behavior as he was losing the war in April 1945.
The Nazi dictator ordered a scorched earth policy designed to destroy any remaining economic resources that the victors might use.
Though not effectively carried out, that order would have deprived German survivors of the limited remaining means to aid their recovery from the devastation to which his war had exposed them.
Trump’s attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to his chosen successor did not pose immediate economic crises but threatened the political process on which American democracy and prosperity rest.
The readiness to lie
Perhaps the most sinister analogy between Trump and Hitler is the readiness to lie. Both leaders have shown remarkable talent to project their declarations with little regard for whether they are true or false.
Hitler and his Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, were brilliant exploiters of the mass media of their time, especially radio, film and print. When one visits the vast stadium in Nuremberg where massive Nazi rallies gave Hitler breathtaking opportunities to animate his followers, the scale is beyond anything in the United States outside of some football arenas.
Trump’s emphasis on his rally size and audience responses recalls Hitler’s events. Once in office, the Nazi quickly suppressed any chance for other groups to mount similar rallies.
The Harris-Walz ticket faces no such obstacles, though Trump repeatedly complains when his opponents attract media attention.
Master propagandist — all by himself
A key point is that, in amplifying his voice, Trump enjoys even greater potential than Hitler. From his experience as a television showman, Trump shows eager interest in gaining coverage both in traditional media and in the myriad new channels of social media and other internet platforms.
If he lacks Hitler’s capacity to deny competitors’ access to those diverse outlets, he is still able to saturate them himself, mounting the equivalent of a full-court press.
Enemies everywhere
It is through his voluble speeches and media presentations that Trump invites a basic comparison to Hitler.
His habitual resort to epithets regarding his opponents resembles the Nazi’s style in describing those he saw as enemies — communists, Jews, anyone standing in the way of his quest for unfettered power.
At their core the two men share egos that are plainly narcissistic in the extreme. And that self-centered focus generates a coarseness of vocabulary and behavior that degrades politics.
Both men exhibit an intense will to power, a drive to dominate that is incompatible with genuine respect for the views and rights of others.
Media matters
The most notable difference between Hitler’s mass communications and those of Donald Trump is that, while the Nazis quickly suppressed independent media, the United States retains vigorous channels to challenge its leaders.
To be sure, the effectiveness of such challenges is diminished by the “stovepiping” of information in the United States, whereby citizens’ choice of information sources reinforces the dangerous polarization of society and politics.
Yet, there is considerable leakage between such stovepipes. That offers hope for true and balanced perceptions eventually to prevail among the citizenry.
Conclusion
General Mark Milley, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Trump presidency, has voiced his emphatic verdict to author Bob Woodward: “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump … Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.” Many others who served with the former president offer similar views.
Nevertheless, a net assessment of the Hitler/Trump comparison is intrinsically controversial and necessarily tentative. The differences are manifold, but so are the similarities. A reasonable verdict is that Trump is no Hitler — unless the American people enable him to be one.
-
Fact Check: Many Of 274 FBI Agents Noted In Internal Report Were Responding To January 6 Capitol Riot -- Report Says They Were Not 'Undercover' Or 'Embedded' In Crowd. well it was a pretty good lie anyway... nice try.
-
Yeah, the fact you're comparing Trump to a Nazi shows your complete and utter ignorance of any history and you literally parrot anything the left tells you. It's not a wonder why you run away from an actual face to face debate. SET.IT.UP.
Oh Coach, you and your debate nonsense again. ::)
If there were to be a debate who decides who won. Also winning a debate would change nothing. This is because it is possible to be dead wrong about something and still win a debate about it or be right and lose the debate.
What we have is differing opinions, that is all. Opinions are not facts.
You do realize that a face-to-face debate means participants are physically present in the same location, person to person. This does not include online or virtual debates. I doubt you will find anyone willing to go to the trouble to travel in order to meet up with you for a debate.
If you mean a formal debate, who is going to judge it? Or, if you mean an informal debate, who decides the winner -- the debaters and/or an audience? If it is the audience's decision, what is the forum or venue?
For the record, I have no interest in having a debate with you about anything, anytime or anywhere.
-
Eerie similarities besides both being Germans.
Both show a monomaniacal approach to politics.
Trump‘s often vulgar denunciation of his opponents’ alleged failures consistently highlights the claim that he alone can fix the problems in public policy and society. That claim finds an analogy in Hitler’s persistent demand that he be the sole leader in Germany.
“Fuehrerprinzip”
One cannot avoid seeing comparable traits in Trump‘s singular assertion of his unique abilities, and the Nazi leader’s insistence on the “Fuehrerprinzip,” the assertion that curing the country’s problems required vesting all power in one leader.
A politician that seeks to be a dictator “but only for a day” is setting the stage to prolong that status indefinitely. Hitler’s dictatorship did not occur instantly when he became German Chancellor in January 1933. Consolidation and perpetuation of his political dominance occurred swiftly in the months that followed.
Stormtroopers — then and now
The Nazi leader relied heavily on the violent, ragtag paramilitary groups that emerged in the wake of Germany’s 1918 defeat. He relied especially on the large number of so-called “storm troopers” mobilized to support the Nazi party as it enlisted millions of voters in the 1920s and 1930s.
No large-scale private militias exist in the United States, but Trump’s friendly stance toward the Proud Boys and others involved in the 2021 assault on the Capitol reveals a parallel inclination to threaten the constitutional order.
Trump has even stated that parts of the constitution may need to be suspended or altered.
That inclination is underscored by the Republican candidate’s constant refrain that any election he loses has to be rigged, that anyone who beats him has to have cheated — a theme that amounts to denying the possibility of the fair elections that are the bedrock of self-government.
Scorched earth policy
Trump’s demonstrated encouragement of the January 2021 uprising against the constitutional change of power bears some resemblance, albeit slight, to Hitler’s behavior as he was losing the war in April 1945.
The Nazi dictator ordered a scorched earth policy designed to destroy any remaining economic resources that the victors might use.
Though not effectively carried out, that order would have deprived German survivors of the limited remaining means to aid their recovery from the devastation to which his war had exposed them.
Trump’s attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to his chosen successor did not pose immediate economic crises but threatened the political process on which American democracy and prosperity rest.
The readiness to lie
Perhaps the most sinister analogy between Trump and Hitler is the readiness to lie. Both leaders have shown remarkable talent to project their declarations with little regard for whether they are true or false.
Hitler and his Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, were brilliant exploiters of the mass media of their time, especially radio, film and print. When one visits the vast stadium in Nuremberg where massive Nazi rallies gave Hitler breathtaking opportunities to animate his followers, the scale is beyond anything in the United States outside of some football arenas.
Trump’s emphasis on his rally size and audience responses recalls Hitler’s events. Once in office, the Nazi quickly suppressed any chance for other groups to mount similar rallies.
The Harris-Walz ticket faces no such obstacles, though Trump repeatedly complains when his opponents attract media attention.
Master propagandist — all by himself
A key point is that, in amplifying his voice, Trump enjoys even greater potential than Hitler. From his experience as a television showman, Trump shows eager interest in gaining coverage both in traditional media and in the myriad new channels of social media and other internet platforms.
If he lacks Hitler’s capacity to deny competitors’ access to those diverse outlets, he is still able to saturate them himself, mounting the equivalent of a full-court press.
Enemies everywhere
It is through his voluble speeches and media presentations that Trump invites a basic comparison to Hitler.
His habitual resort to epithets regarding his opponents resembles the Nazi’s style in describing those he saw as enemies — communists, Jews, anyone standing in the way of his quest for unfettered power.
At their core the two men share egos that are plainly narcissistic in the extreme. And that self-centered focus generates a coarseness of vocabulary and behavior that degrades politics.
Both men exhibit an intense will to power, a drive to dominate that is incompatible with genuine respect for the views and rights of others.
Media matters
The most notable difference between Hitler’s mass communications and those of Donald Trump is that, while the Nazis quickly suppressed independent media, the United States retains vigorous channels to challenge its leaders.
To be sure, the effectiveness of such challenges is diminished by the “stovepiping” of information in the United States, whereby citizens’ choice of information sources reinforces the dangerous polarization of society and politics.
Yet, there is considerable leakage between such stovepipes. That offers hope for true and balanced perceptions eventually to prevail among the citizenry.
Conclusion
General Mark Milley, who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Trump presidency, has voiced his emphatic verdict to author Bob Woodward: “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump … Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country.” Many others who served with the former president offer similar views.
Nevertheless, a net assessment of the Hitler/Trump comparison is intrinsically controversial and necessarily tentative. The differences are manifold, but so are the similarities. A reasonable verdict is that Trump is no Hitler — unless the American people enable him to be one.
Again, the fact your dumb ass(s) because that’s the narrative of every leftist screaming “nazi” and “fascism” is comparing 1930’s Hitler to today makes you that much more ignorant
“Historically, fascism often involved illegal or extralegal actions to seize and maintain power, such as abolishing democratic institutions, banning opposition, and using violence to suppress dissent, as seen in regimes like Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany. These actions typically violated existing legal frameworks or constitutions. In contrast, most modern right-wing movements in democratic countries operate within legal and constitutional bounds, participating in elections and adhering to established laws, even if their policies or rhetoric spark controversy. While critics may dislike certain decisions, those decisions are generally made through lawful processes, not through the overthrow of legal systems as fascism historically entailed.”
-
Oh Coach, you and your debate nonsense again. ::)
If there were to be a debate who decides who won. Also winning a debate would change nothing. This is because it is possible to be dead wrong about something and still win a debate about it or be right and lose the debate.
What we have is differing opinions, that is all. Opinions are not facts.
You do realize that a face-to-face debate means participants are physically present in the same location, person to person. This does not include online or virtual debates. I doubt you will find anyone willing to go to the trouble to travel in order to meet up with you for a debate.
If you mean a formal debate, who is going to judge it? Or, if you mean an informal debate, who decides the winner -- the debaters and/or an audience? If it is the audience's decision, what is the forum or venue?
For the record, I have no interest in having a debate with you about anything, anytime or anywhere.
A face to face debate in our case could be a live a zoom with multiple people watching. Skate more
-
A face to face debate in our case could be a live a zoom with multiple people watching. Skate more
Good to know. Maybe I should have known this because I have chaired several board meetings on Zoom. Wearing headphones, I can hear most of what folks are saying much better than in person using just my hearing aids.
Did you neglect to read my comment about not having an interest in debating with you about anything, anytime or anywhere, (including on Zoom). As I said, winning a debate does not change whether something is right or wrong. Someone can win a debate and still be wrong about what they were debating.
-
Oh Coach, you and your debate nonsense again. ::)
If there were to be a debate who decides who won. Also winning a debate would change nothing. This is because it is possible to be dead wrong about something and still win a debate about it or be right and lose the debate.
What we have is differing opinions, that is all. Opinions are not facts.
You do realize that a face-to-face debate means participants are physically present in the same location, person to person. This does not include online or virtual debates. I doubt you will find anyone willing to go to the trouble to travel in order to meet up with you for a debate.
If you mean a formal debate, who is going to judge it? Or, if you mean an informal debate, who decides the winner -- the debaters and/or an audience? If it is the audience's decision, what is the forum or venue?
For the record, I have no interest in having a debate with you about anything, anytime or anywhere.
Mister Chaos would be the judge. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
How's this bombshell ageing not too well, just another falsehood proven to be fake news to distract from what is really going on behind the scene. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Mister Chaos would be the judge. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Right now I'm judging your liberal faggotry. You're just a bad person. Your TDS has turned a once decent person with decades of weightlifting knowledge into a Trump obsessed lying moron.