A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

[XsjadoBlayde]

Any word yet on if anyone has taken him up on that $5 million dollar bet he rigged from the start?

Hah! If only a single conspiracy theorist who claimed that ever followed through with it. They have uniquely shared tendancies for being able to reject anything inconvenient for any reason. The easy cash would be nice though!

-

Tina Peters, leaky breach suspect of course joins the party.



An informative breakdown in thread on how their (Watkins) failure to obscure sources helped with finding who it was so specifically, some interactive stuff included for ppl who aren't me stuck using a phone.



Panama papers suspect (an important leak which led to the responsible journalist's death btw) finds comfort in qanon.


Focus on the "why" indeed, Ramon.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

The Republican Party has never been radical liberals. The Democratic Party has moved dramatically over the course of its existence, and yes used to be very conservative in general, but the Republican Party has never, ever been what the Democrats are now. The only aspects of liberalism to be found within Republicanism are those enshrined within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution around which the American Republic is formed, and none of those ideas were particularly radical by the time the Republican Party came into existence.

But the conservatives of the day called them radical liberals, what with their new-fangled ideas of racial equality, equity programs, and president who corresponded with the First Marxist himself

 

[Silvanus]

Ok, cite that. Bring up the report, find the part that says 1.5C of warming will cause natural disasters, quote it.

OK, let's look at what the IPCC is saying, then:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf

The average and maximum rain rates associated with severe convective storms increase in a warming world in some regions including the USA (high confidence). There is high confidence from climate models that CAPE increases in response to global warming in the tropics and subtropics, suggesting more favourable environments for severe convective storms.

Concurrent extreme events at different locations, but possibly affecting similar sectors (e.g., breadbaskets) in different regions, will become more frequent with increasing global warming, in particular above +2°C of global warming (high confidence).

In summary, there is high confidence that concurrent heat waves and droughts have increased in frequency over the last century at the global scale due to human influence. There is medium confidence that weather conditions that promote wildfires (fire weather) have become more probable in southern Europe, northern Eurasia, the US, and Australia over the last century. There is high confidence that compound hot and dry conditions become more probable in nearly all land regions as global mean temperature increases. There is high confidence that fire weather conditions will become more frequent at higher levels of global warming in some regions.

In addition, in a warming climate, the probability of having several locations being affected simultaneously by e.g. hot extremes and heat waves increases strongly as a function of global warming, with detectable changes even for changes as small as +0.5°C of additional global warming

Both the ENSO amplitude and the frequency of high-magnitude events since 1950 is higher than over the pre-industrial period (medium confidence), suggesting that global extremes similar to those associated with the 2015-2016 El Niño would occur more frequently under further increases in global warming. The 2018 boreal spring/summer extremes were characterized by heat extremes and enhanced droughts in wide areas of the mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere and extremely heavy rainfall in East Asia. These concurrent events were generally related to abnormal condition of the jet and North Pacific Subtropical High, but also amplified by background global warming. It is virtually certain that these 2018 concurrent extreme events would not have occurred without human-induced global warming

While it is difficult to identify the exact causes of a particular extreme event, the relatively new science of 6 event attribution is able to quantify the role of climate change in altering the probability and magnitude of some types of weather and climate extremes. There is strong evidence that characteristics of many individual extreme events have already changed because of human-driven changes to the climate system. Some types of highly impactful extreme weather events have occurred more often and have become more severe due to these human influences. [...] human-caused global warming has resulted in changes in a wide variety of recent extreme weather events. Strong increases in probability and magnitude, attributable to human influence, have been found for many heat waves and hot extremes around the world

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/06/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf

(Impacts of 1.5c of global warming on natural and human systems)

Human-induced global warming has already caused multiple observed changes in the climate system (high confidence). Changes include increases in both land and ocean temperatures, as well as more frequent heatwaves in most land regions (high confidence). There is also high confidence that global warming has resulted in an increase in the frequency and duration of marine heatwaves. Further, there is substantial evidence that human-induced global warming has led to an increase in the frequency, intensity and/or amount of heavy precipitation events at the global scale (medium confidence), as well as an increased risk of drought in the Mediterranean region (medium confidence)

A global warming of 1.5°C would also lead to an expansion of the global land area with significant increases in runoff and to an increase in flood hazard in some regions compared to present-day conditions.

At 1.5c, increases in heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones

At 1.5c, Increases in drought, dryness or precipitation deficits projected in some regions compared to the pre-industrial or present-day conditions

Liu et al. (2018) studied the changes in population exposure to severe droughts in 27 regions around the globe for 1.5°C and 2°C of warming using the SSP1 population scenario compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005 based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). They concluded that the drought exposure of urban populations in most regions would be decreased at 1.5°C (350.2 ± 158.8 million people) compared to 2°C (410.7 ± 213.5 million people). Liu et al. (2018) also suggested that more urban populations would be exposed to severe droughts at 1.5°C in central Europe, southern Europe, the Mediterranean, West Africa, East and West Asia, and Southeast Asia, and that number of affected people would increase further in these regions at 2°C.

 

[tstorm823]

But the conservatives of the day called them radical liberals, what with their new-fangled ideas of racial equality, equity programs, and president who corresponded with the First Marxist himself

I'm not sure you understand what those words mean. @Seanchaidh or @Revnak may need to step in here.

 

[Revnak]

I'm not sure you understand what those words mean. @Seanchaidh or @Revnak may need to step in here.

No they’re actually absolutely correct the early Republicans would be best described as radical liberals and Lincoln’s maintaining a correspondence with Marx is part of that.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I'm not sure you understand what those words mean. @Seanchaidh or @Revnak may need to step in here.

The GOP specifically supported the rights of black people to vote and otherwise be citizens, the Reconstruction was a racial equity program so successful that racist conservatives assassinated hundreds of people over it, including the president, and Lincoln actively corresponded with Karl Marx, agreeing with him on key points.

Do you understand what those words mean?

 

[BrawlMan]

Do you understand what those words mean?

He never understands anything.

 

[tstorm823]

No they’re actually absolutely correct the early Republicans would be best described as radical liberals and Lincoln’s maintaining a correspondence with Marx is part of that.

I should have known you'd be silly. My mistake.

The GOP specifically supported the rights of black people to vote and otherwise be citizens, the Reconstruction was a racial equity program so successful that racist conservatives assassinated hundreds of people over it, including the president, and Lincoln actively corresponded with Karl Marx, agreeing with him on key points.

Do you understand what those words mean?

Supporting the rights of black people is potentially liberal, but not explicitly. Corresponding with Karl Marx doesn't make a person anything specifically, but it definitely doesn't make them liberal. And my god, the Reconstruction thing. That's not liberal. Government enforced equity is not liberal. So much so, that the pro-Reconstruction Republicans were referred to as the radicals, and the anti-Reconstruction Republicans, one might say the conservative Republicans of the time, started their own opposition party named, I kid you not, The Liberal Republican Party. Liberal and radical were opposing wings of Republicans. Frankly, the idea of someone being a "radical liberal" in America any time after the 18th century might just be an oxymoron. Liberalism just isn't radical in the USA. If we want to separate the adjectives, an individual could be both liberal and radical in different ways, but the only sense in which Republicans are or have ever been liberal is in the conservative sense.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Frankly, the idea of someone being a "radical liberal" in America any time after the 18th century might just be an oxymoron. Liberalism just isn't radical in the USA. If we want to separate the adjectives, an individual could be both liberal and radical in different ways, but the only sense in which Republicans are or have ever been liberal is in the conservative sense.

"Liberal in the conservative sense".
Huh. Turns out you can just say words. Who gives a shit about silly things like ideologies or definitions

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I should have known you'd be silly. My mistake.

Supporting the rights of black people is potentially liberal, but not explicitly. Corresponding with Karl Marx doesn't make a person anything specifically, but it definitely doesn't make them liberal. And my god, the Reconstruction thing. That's not liberal. Government enforced equity is not liberal. So much so, that the pro-Reconstruction Republicans were referred to as the radicals, and the anti-Reconstruction Republicans, one might say the conservative Republicans of the time, started their own opposition party named, I kid you not, The Liberal Republican Party. Liberal and radical were opposing wings of Republicans. Frankly, the idea of someone being a "radical liberal" in America any time after the 18th century might just be an oxymoron. Liberalism just isn't radical in the USA. If we want to separate the adjectives, an individual could be both liberal and radical in different ways, but the only sense in which Republicans are or have ever been liberal is in the conservative sense.

It may be shocking for you, but a political party called "the whigs" was not a party for bald people, and the "know nothing party" was not against education.

It's almost like what a political party titles themselves actually means nothing.

 

[Kwak]

"Liberal in the conservative sense".
Huh. Turns out you can just say words. Who gives a shit about silly things like ideologies or definitions

The definition is thinking money and capital should have more rights than people.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I should have known you'd be silly. My mistake.

Supporting the rights of black people is potentially liberal, but not explicitly.

Supporting the rights of black and other marginalized people is liberal up to a certain point, though liberals often find reasons to side against them even when it directly contradicts liberal philosophy. For example, liberal publication the Economist favored the Confederacy under the reasoning that the North wasn't angry at slavery so much as that it was protectionist while the South favored free trade. (And they reaaaaaally wanted that cotton).

Corresponding with Karl Marx doesn't make a person anything specifically, but it definitely doesn't make them liberal.

The other word under examination is 'radical'. Some people wanted to reform slavery. Liberal reforms, you might characterize them. Slaves could maybe have some legal rights against various abuses. Recourse against masters that rape them. Policies against the separation of families. That sort of thing. And then there were the radicals, who favored the emancipation of slaves and, contra what occurred in Britain, without financial compensation to the masters. Ultimately, the radical approach was taken in arguably the most successful left-wing social movement that has ever occurred in the United States.

And my god, the Reconstruction thing. That's not liberal. Government enforced equity is not liberal. So much so, that the pro-Reconstruction Republicans were referred to as the radicals, and the anti-Reconstruction Republicans, one might say the conservative Republicans of the time, started their own opposition party named, I kid you not, The Liberal Republican Party. Liberal and radical were opposing wings of Republicans. Frankly, the idea of someone being a "radical liberal" in America any time after the 18th century might just be an oxymoron. Liberalism just isn't radical in the USA. If we want to separate the adjectives, an individual could be both liberal and radical in different ways, but the only sense in which Republicans are or have ever been liberal is in the conservative sense.

The "conservative" sense of fighting a bloody civil war to upend the Southern relations of production? Seems like a bit of a stretch. The opposition to slavery, by violent means if necessary, was quite radical. Abolitionism was radical. It was also an outgrowth of the liberal 'human rights' tradition, especially as abolition of plantation chattel slavery by itself did not threaten capitalism-- and the liberals of the Republican Party didn't really mind too much if the emancipated slaves remained exploited as sharecroppers. It often takes radicals to make liberals live up to the ideals of their own philosophy, and the abolition of slavery (except prison slavery) is one example where that was the case.

Liberal and radical were opposing wings of Republicans.

So

Lincoln was a Republican.
And after Lincoln Republicans split into radicals and liberals, according to you.
It certainly sounds like you're saying that the Republican party of Lincoln was composed of liberals and radicals.

Also, I'd just like to note another time that Marx was right:

Marx gave full support to the Union cause, even though Lincoln initially refused to make emancipation a war goal. Marx was confident that the clash of rival social regimes, based on opposing systems of labor, would sooner or later surface as the real issue. While consistently supporting the North, he wrote that the Union would only triumph if it adopted the revolutionary anti-slavery measures advocated by Wendell Phillips and other radical abolitionists. He was particularly impressed by Phillips’s speeches in 1862 calling to strike down all compromises with slavery. He approvingly quoted Phillips’s dictum that “God had placed the thunderbolt of emancipation” in Northern hands and they should use it.

 

[tstorm823]

The "conservative" sense of fighting a bloody civil war to upend the Southern relations of production?

Also, I'd just like to note another time that Marx was right:

You simultaneously believe the North entered the war to upend the South's economy and believe Marx convinced Lincoln to abolish slavery mid-war? Do you not see the contradiction?

The south seceded, and the Union fought to preserve the Union. The root cause may have been slavery, but that's not precisely what the North was fighting for. The North was fighting to keep America one nation, which happened to be one nation without slavery, as continuing with split systems of human rights was not tenable. That's not a radical, liberal war. That's right wing, and in some senses conservative. As you say, many liberals would have let the confederacy secede.

"Liberal in the conservative sense".
Huh. Turns out you can just say words. Who gives a shit about silly things like ideologies or definitions

Do you not get that those words aren't opposites? Do you have any idea how many places on the planet the "liberal party" is the conservative side of the arguments?

It may be shocking for you, but a political party called "the whigs" was not a party for bald people, and the "know nothing party" was not against education.

It's almost like what a political party titles themselves actually means nothing.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the post you were responding to. Just a complete whiff.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Cyber Symposium Live Server 2 ( Camera 2 )

Watch the Mike Lindell's Cyber Symposium live from South Dakota, Server 2, Camera 2 Video Not Working? Try >> Server 1 || Server 3 Cyber Symposium

world-wire.com

Watching this event feels like experiencing a stroke in super slow motion. It's brain damage wrapped in gift ribbons and american flags. And they doesn't stop.

Anyway, no evidence yet provided. Package captures nowhere to be seen.

Extra info from a right-wing source;

EXCLUSIVE: Cyber expert says his team can’t prove Mike Lindell’s claims that China hacked election

The cyber expert on the “red team” hired by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell now says the key data underpinning the theory that China hacked the 2020 election unveiled at the Cyber Symposium is illegitimate.

amp.washingtontimes.com

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — The cyber expert on the “red team” hired by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell now says the key data underpinning the theory that China hacked the 2020 election unveiled at the Cyber Symposium is illegitimate.

Mr. Lindell said he had 37 terabytes of “irrefutable” evidence that hackers, who he said were backed by China, broke into election systems and switched votes in favor of President Biden. The proof, he said, is visible in intercepted network data or “packet captures” that were collected by hackers and could be unencrypted to reveal that a cyberattack occurred and that votes were switched.

But cyber expert Josh Merritt, who is on the team hired by Mr. Lindell to interrogate the data for the symposium, told The Washington Times that packet captures are unrecoverable in the data and that the data, as provided, cannot prove a cyber incursion by China.

“So our team said, we’re not going to say that this is legitimate if we don’t have confidence in the information,” Mr. Merritt said on Wednesday, the second day of the symposium.

Mr. Merritt’s break from Mr. Lindell accelerated the unraveling of the MyPillow millionaire’s months of spinning of a conspiracy theory that he said would reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and restore former President Donald Trump to the White House.

Mr. Lindell delayed a scheduled unveiling of his evidence on Wednesday at the symposium.
He had offered $5 million to any in-person attendee who can disprove his claims. The offer is no longer on the table, Mr. Merritt said.

Leading up to the seminar, Mr. Lindell had displayed a video of scrolling, incomprehensible text, which he claimed were the packet captures he had received — proof, he claimed, of his China hacking theory. The video was featured in his documentary “Absolute 9-0” and was played on loop on screens throughout the convention center during the symposium.

Cybersecurity expert J. Kirk Wiebe, a former senior National Security Agency analyst and whistleblower, also said Mr. Lindell did not have the actual data sets.

He said the scrolling text was likely meant to resemble what the packet captures would look like in the data set but were not actual packet captures, which are vital to prove the claims.

Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures.

Mr. Merritt and Mr. Wiebe said the missing packet captures could be a result of either the format the data was sent in or they were withheld by the source of the information, Dennis L. Montgomery.

Mr. Montgomery is a former government contractor who developed cyber tools named HAMMER and SCORECARD, which were allegedly used by the U.S. to influence foreign elections. Mr. Montgomery came forward with the data after he said the tools were being used to influence U.S. elections, according to Mr. Wiebe.

Mr. Merritt confirmed that Mr. Montgomery was the source of the data.

But the data Mr. Montgomery sent contains no packet captures and cannot be used to validate Mr. Lindell’s marquee theory, which he planned to unveil at the symposium, said the two experts.

Mr. Montgomery reportedly suffered a stroke on the eve of the symposium and has not been in contact with Mr. Lindell’s team or any cyber experts at the symposium.

He has been behind several other high-profile conspiracy theories, including allegations that U.S. security agencies wiretapped Trump Tower while Mr. Trump was running for president in 2016.

Mr. Montgomery said he presented the wiretap evidence to then-FBI Director James B. Comey, who dismissed the information. Mr. Montgomery later sued Mr. Comey, alleging a cover-up. The lawsuit was dropped.

Mr. Montgomery has also publicly claimed that the 2020 election was manipulated, which former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Christopher Krebs said was a “hoax.”

Still, Mr. Merritt said, the data did contain important “forensic” evidence of manipulated voters.

“We were handed a turd,” he said. “And I had to take that turd and turn it into a diamond. And that’s what I think we did.”

The symposium organizers unveiled data Wednesday in front of the audience, which they said showed tampering in the 2020 presidential election in Mesa County, Colorado. The presentation was ad hoc and separate from Mr. Lindell’s original claim of a nationwide hack.

Mesa County’s clerk and recorder, Tina Peters, headlined Day One of the gathering. Ms. Peters is under investigation for a potential election security breach from within her office.

Mr. Lindell’s team would not confirm the source of the data used for Wednesday’s presentation.

Phil Waldron who is the leader of the red team, said only a small slice of the data was provided to the red team, just days before the symposium.

Mr. Waldron said the remaining data, not interrogated during the symposium, could contain the packet captures and other data needed to prove China hacked the election. He also said that ample evidence was contained in the data that points to other significant election anomalies, that were just as significant and worth unpacking during the symposium.

Kurt Olsen, a lawyer on Mr. Lindell’s team said there were multiple sources of the data that Mr. Lindell claims to have, and did not confirm that Mr. Mongtomery was the source of the data. He also clarified that the $5 million challenge has not been canceled and that Mr. Merritt would not be privy to that information.

Bolded the parts meant to confuse anyone still hoping for the 5 mill challenge to be on the table too.

-

Lmao, the quiet part loud as always...

 

[happyninja42]

What I love is how during the entire thing, is that 66% off tagline at the bottom, clearly indicating what this is really about. Milking the idiot herd of their money in the name of freedom and murica. It's so blatantly a cash grab, and they just don't see it at all!

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you not get that those words aren't opposites? Do you have any idea how many places on the planet the "liberal party" is the conservative side of the arguments?

Do you not get that Conservative and Liberal, in a political sense, are specific political ideologies that are, in fact, exclusive?

All that's largely irrelevant though. You have to pretend that although the Democrats underwent wild ideological changes, the GOP is an unchanging monolith that's only right wing because of a radical social shift to the left. Because if that's not the case, and if the GOP has, in fact, changed from the time that they supported race-based equity programs and broadly accepted marxist labor theory, then you might have to concede that the Southern Strategy was a thing, and that the Grand Old Party of Lincoln has turned neo-conservative.

 

[BrawlMan]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/capitol-riot-costs-defendants-pay/2021/08/09/ff05f4b0-f923-11eb-9c0e-97e29906a970_story.html

Capitol riot suspect who wore Navy hat and camouflaged shirt during the Jan. 6 insurrection never actually served in the military, FBI says

Michael Aaron Carico was arrested in late July and charged with four counts in connection with the January 6 riot, according to court documents.

news.yahoo.com

I Filmed the Capitol Riot. When the FBI Called, I Faced a Vexing Dilemma.

“It’s a little tense, right?” an FBI agent asked me.

slate.com

Rules of engagement: Lenient plea deals are off the table for some Capitol riot defendants

Defense attorneys told Insider that veterans, police officers, and riot defendants who entered lawmaker's offices will receive felony charges.

www.insider.com

Shit, us taxpayers shouldn't even be coming close to paying more than the amount than those terrorist who did those damages. Empty out all their entire Bank accounts, not ours.

I'm glad to see that there are defendants that are not going to get the plea deal at all. So at least that's a nice bonus.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Ok, some thoughtful soul has put together a small video with the freshest cringe without the dog-whistles.


If the random duck noises are confusing, don't worry: they're just a chosen unsubtle code for when a speaker should stop talking because of feared legal boundaries. Chef's kiss moment after Ron reads out his lawyer's statement on the stolen hard drives though. This is going to be a Coen Brothers film in 5 years time I swear.

 

[tstorm823]

Do you not get that Conservative and Liberal, in a political sense, are specific political ideologies that are, in fact, exclusive?

All that's largely irrelevant though. You have to pretend that although the Democrats underwent wild ideological changes, the GOP is an unchanging monolith that's only right wing because of a radical social shift to the left. Because if that's not the case, and if the GOP has, in fact, changed from the time that they supported race-based equity programs and broadly accepted marxist labor theory, then you might have to concede that the Southern Strategy was a thing, and that the Grand Old Party of Lincoln has turned neo-conservative.

I mean, I could ramble for pages about what these words mean and how you're getting it wrong. I'll say simply enough that the Republican Party was always right of the Democratic Party, even when the Democrats were more conservative. If you can sort out that sentence, maybe you'll get it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I mean, I could ramble for pages about what these words mean and how you're getting it wrong. I'll say simply enough that the Republican Party was always right of the Democratic Party, even when the Democrats were more conservative. If you can sort out that sentence, maybe you'll get it.

No no, please ramble. You get to explain why the conservative democrats of the day were wrong when they described their radical liberal republican opponents when they overthrew a city government and burned down a black newspaper