If you’re in a crowd that built a gallows and starts chanting “hang mike pence” and then storms the Capitol looking for Mike Pence…. Yeah, you didn’t “get caught up” in something. You failed to remove yourself from the scene.
These were adults, no? Let’s stop making excuses for them.
I'm not excusing those people. I'm talking about the other several thousand who left as soon as they saw violence happening.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
I don't believe I said that. I was talking about the people who went to the capitol building. This is what I said and I stand by it:
"They're all on videotape literally yelling, ranting and raving, about how they wanted to hang the vice president and to take back their country back with force. A lot of the magamorons who pled guilty said they were there trying to help Trump stay in office. Most of them probably thought Trump was going to be there with them since he said he was going to and they believe everything that chronological liar says."
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
Not for nothing Hugh, but why else would someone attend the “stop the steal” rally on 1/6 at the ellipse if they didn’t support the disruption of the certification of the election? Mind you I’m not advocating the prosecution of anyone who gathered peacefully, but the intent of the rally was made quite clear from the start.
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
Not for nothing Hugh, but why else would someone attend the “stop the steal” rally on 1/6 at the ellipse if they didn’t support the disruption of the certification of the election? Mind you I’m not advocating the prosecution of anyone who gathered peacefully, but the intent of the rally was made quite clear from the start.
That’s no different than white nationalists rallies. It’s disgusting but I’d defend their right to be disgusting
they terrorise and intimidate as that’s the entire point of any of these far right gatherings when they parade around cities, often carrying guns. Until they act they are doing it legally
stepping one foot inside the capital then it changes
And mace if your still around, my “trigger” comment was in reference to the FBI mar a lago raid and not Jan six. Yes I mention Jan six as proof they are willing to resort to violence, but my comment was 100% influenced by the scores of reports that maga world was pissed at the mar a lago raid and ready for civil war. So the discussion that followed is a bit off topic.
So, it’s a bit funny, I was not ”interpreting” the Jan six riot in order to call maga world violent, I was literally following reports that they were ready for civil war after the FBI raided his home. No interpreting there, they specifically told us so.
Below is my full comment. IMO it’s apparent I am referring to the FBI mar a lago raid, and the subsequent civil war - specifically from maga world - immediately after the FBI raid.
Think of the practicality of arresting a former president. We like to say no one is above the law but there is no real way to pull it off without pissing off millions of crazies with guns, who would happily pull the trigger over this, and Jan six is proof of that. And the instant a Republican becomes president, Biden, Obama and Hilary will be sharing a cell.
Its not worth the risk for simply trump taking documents. Now if they have evidence trump was up to something nefarious with a foreign enemy, that could be different
edit, for reference, this original comment is in the “indictment” thread 9/5, not this one,
I’m still around. After Nashville, had to pick up my guitar for the first time in a long time. Then I get sad knowing I’ll never be Mike.
But this is what you said that I replied to: “We like to say no one is above the law but there is no real way to pull it off without pissing off millions of crazies with guns, who would happily pull the trigger over this, and Jan six is proof of that."
I don’t know how to take that any way other than what happened Jan 6 is proof that millions will take up arms and be happy to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way. You may be talking about the Trump raid, but your proof millions will be happy to pull the trigger over it was Jan 6. I don’t see Jan 6 as proof millions will take up arms, kill millions more and create the biggest civil war the world has ever seen. I’m just not seeing that from Jan 6, over Mar a largo or anything else.
His followers threatened civil war, and my best guess is that requires millions, not thousands. Jan six was certainly violent, whether or not there were a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand guns nearby.
Trump is pandering to the violent extreme of his party, when he says “a storm is coming.”
…
“On Tuesday, using his Truth Social platform, the Republican former president reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.” In QAnon lore, the “storm” refers to Trump’s final victory, when supposedly he will regain power and his opponents will be tried, and potentially executed, on live television.”
…
he sent an angry armed mob to the capitol; his followers threatened civil war when the FBI raided his club, and now he is embracing a violent conspiracy group cultist belief that judgement day is coming in order to kill democrats.
the evidence is there, it’s daunting republicans are closing their eyes and ears to it.
So because a few threatened civil war, that means they have the millions required to maybe pull it off? Those threatening civil war are a very small minority of the far right. Not the majority of the party.
The leader promotes violence, and his voters don’t seem concerned at all, that’s the threat. Maybe if he threatened to kill you you’d be more concerned?
And mace if your still around, my “trigger” comment was in reference to the FBI mar a lago raid and not Jan six. Yes I mention Jan six as proof they are willing to resort to violence, but my comment was 100% influenced by the scores of reports that maga world was pissed at the mar a lago raid and ready for civil war. So the discussion that followed is a bit off topic.
So, it’s a bit funny, I was not ”interpreting” the Jan six riot in order to call maga world violent, I was literally following reports that they were ready for civil war after the FBI raided his home. No interpreting there, they specifically told us so.
Below is my full comment. IMO it’s apparent I am referring to the FBI mar a lago raid, and the subsequent civil war - specifically from maga world - immediately after the FBI raid.
Think of the practicality of arresting a former president. We like to say no one is above the law but there is no real way to pull it off without pissing off millions of crazies with guns, who would happily pull the trigger over this, and Jan six is proof of that. And the instant a Republican becomes president, Biden, Obama and Hilary will be sharing a cell.
Its not worth the risk for simply trump taking documents. Now if they have evidence trump was up to something nefarious with a foreign enemy, that could be different
edit, for reference, this original comment is in the “indictment” thread 9/5, not this one,
I’m still around. After Nashville, had to pick up my guitar for the first time in a long time. Then I get sad knowing I’ll never be Mike.
But this is what you said that I replied to: “We like to say no one is above the law but there is no real way to pull it off without pissing off millions of crazies with guns, who would happily pull the trigger over this, and Jan six is proof of that."
I don’t know how to take that any way other than what happened Jan 6 is proof that millions will take up arms and be happy to pull the trigger if they don’t get their way. You may be talking about the Trump raid, but your proof millions will be happy to pull the trigger over it was Jan 6. I don’t see Jan 6 as proof millions will take up arms, kill millions more and create the biggest civil war the world has ever seen. I’m just not seeing that from Jan 6, over Mar a largo or anything else.
His followers threatened civil war, and my best guess is that requires millions, not thousands. Jan six was certainly violent, whether or not there were a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand guns nearby.
Trump is pandering to the violent extreme of his party, when he says “a storm is coming.”
…
“On Tuesday, using his Truth Social platform, the Republican former president reposted an image of himself wearing a Q lapel pin overlaid with the words “The Storm is Coming.” In QAnon lore, the “storm” refers to Trump’s final victory, when supposedly he will regain power and his opponents will be tried, and potentially executed, on live television.”
…
he sent an angry armed mob to the capitol; his followers threatened civil war when the FBI raided his club, and now he is embracing a violent conspiracy group cultist belief that judgement day is coming in order to kill democrats.
the evidence is there, it’s daunting republicans are closing their eyes and ears to it.
So because a few threatened civil war, that means they have the millions required to maybe pull it off? Those threatening civil war are a very small minority of the far right. Not the majority of the party.
I'm generally with Mace. I think it's a small minority that feels this way and significantly smaller that would ever do anything about it. They are generally a bunch of Cos players.
I think many did go to the Capital thinking they could stop the certification but they had no clue how. By contrast, Team Trump used them to try and pressure Pence.
That’s obvious based on your jokes about the cos players, which are insignificant to the point I was striving to make. The problem is, to change this country, it does not take a lot of violence, the threat of violence with a handful of guns is enough.
combine the violence with the threat of more violence by brandishing guns, with changing voting and certification laws, topped off with a friendly court, and that’s more than enough to get the job done.
Looking at how GOP voters flocked to support trump candidates in the primaries after his decision to go violent is more than enough proof.
the fact that Cheney agrees more with me than you is a bit daunting.
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
Not for nothing Hugh, but why else would someone attend the “stop the steal” rally on 1/6 at the ellipse if they didn’t support the disruption of the certification of the election? Mind you I’m not advocating the prosecution of anyone who gathered peacefully, but the intent of the rally was made quite clear from the start.
I can't claim to know the intentions of what anyone was there to do that day. But if I had to guess, for most it was to be part of "something" that their cult leader was attending.
some had legit intentions to "take back the country" by any means necessary.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
If you’re in a crowd that built a gallows and starts chanting “hang mike pence” and then storms the Capitol looking for Mike Pence…. Yeah, you didn’t “get caught up” in something. You failed to remove yourself from the scene.
These were adults, no? Let’s stop making excuses for them.
I don’t disagree with that. I’ve never said these people shouldn’t have been arrested or should be let out of jail. I just don’t believe the majority actually believed they would or could prevent Biden from being president from storming the Capitol that day. But we’re arguing other people’s intent who none of us ever met and could never know. It’s just hypothetical, and just my opinion.
There is ample evidence to the contrary.
you disagreed with mace saying he didn't believe the majority were there for that purpose.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
If you’re in a crowd that built a gallows and starts chanting “hang mike pence” and then storms the Capitol looking for Mike Pence…. Yeah, you didn’t “get caught up” in something. You failed to remove yourself from the scene.
These were adults, no? Let’s stop making excuses for them.
I don’t disagree with that. I’ve never said these people shouldn’t have been arrested or should be let out of jail. I just don’t believe the majority actually believed they would or could prevent Biden from being president from storming the Capitol that day. But we’re arguing other people’s intent who none of us ever met and could never know. It’s just hypothetical, and just my opinion.
There is ample evidence to the contrary.
you disagreed with mace saying he didn't believe the majority were there for that purpose.
Again, I don't know what you're talking about, Hugh. Unless you are assuming I meant the people who only went to the rally and not the capitol again?
The people who went to the capitol (which is the crowd I have only been talking about) knew damn well what they were trying to do.
Yeah, sorry guys. You don't just get "caught up in a riot" at the US Capitol building, behind police barricades, at the exact date and time of the certifying of the election. They all knew why they were marching there and they all knew what they were trying to do. Their leader told them to fight like hell for him. They were following orders. They're all on videotape admitting to it. They're not "average joes." They're all a bunch of lunatics.
2,000 or entered the capitol. out of an estimated rally attendance of 80,000.
all of whom were doing what again?
Whoa....80,000?!?! There were like 10,000 people at that speech. lol
I have no qualms with the disillusioned wackjobs that chose to spend their time at a Trump rally and did NOT attempt to block the certification of the election.
sorry yes, bad source. 10,000. the fact remains: the majority left.
Why do you think any of us are talking about the people who only went to the speech though?
this whole back and forth started with you asserting that "every person who went to that rally was there to disrupt the election certification". that's what I was disagreeing with.
Not for nothing Hugh, but why else would someone attend the “stop the steal” rally on 1/6 at the ellipse if they didn’t support the disruption of the certification of the election? Mind you I’m not advocating the prosecution of anyone who gathered peacefully, but the intent of the rally was made quite clear from the start.
I can't claim to know the intentions of what anyone was there to do that day. But if I had to guess, for most it was to be part of "something" that their cult leader was attending.
some had legit intentions to "take back the country" by any means necessary.
“To be part of ‘something’ their cult leader was attending”.
My goodness that’s a generous assessment… far too generous IMO, but you’re entitled to yours as much as I am mine.
Cmon Hugh, They knew what trump was up to on Jan six. They’re not conspiracy loving believers 24/7 , travel to dc, and then become ignorant of trumps central belief - that his prophecy of a rigged election came true. The only reason they were there was to impede congress.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
Post edited by HughFreakingDillon on
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
While they may not have (all) specifically wanted or intended to hang the VP, it’s a stretch to assume people who traveled from pretty much every state in the country to attend this rally had benign intentions. It’s an even bigger stretch to assume that of the people who marched to the capitol from the ellipse.
I replied to one of your above comments but moved it to the Capitol Riots thread in the interest of thread integrity.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
They all didn’t come to hang Mike Pence, but they were fine with it if it got their desired result.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
While they may not have (all) specifically wanted or intended to hang the VP, it’s a stretch to assume people who traveled from pretty much every state in the country to attend this rally had benign intentions. It’s an even bigger stretch to assume that of the people who marched to the capitol from the ellipse.
I replied to one of your above comments but moved it to the Capitol Riots thread in the interest of thread integrity.
You are describing any protest that the other side feels is inappropriate.
Civil rights, BLM etc. it’s certainly scary if you are a racist. Florida already tried to pass laws making the entire crowd responsible for the actions of a few because of BLM. That’s a terrible standard intended to discourage lawful gatherings since you don’t know what others may do.
you have to separate the lawful gathering Vs the illegal breach of the capital. Once it’s illegal anyone who did something illegal should get the book thrown at them and probably should all get charged with major crimes.
in this case it’s exceedingly simple who went inside and who didn’t. There is a clear dividing line between legal and illegal.
Otherwise you are against free speech you disagree with. It’s easy to defend speech you agree with, it’s harder to defend speech you find offensive. The standard shouldn’t be that the speech you agree with is permitted
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
Are you still talking about the people who only attended the speech and didn't go to the capitol? If so, why? I am having a hard time following your point. Hard to say that the people who went to the capitol building yelling "stop the steal" and "hang mike pence" and "we're taking back out country yada" on the exact day and time the election was being certified didn't have any kind of intent.
it’s not about being violent, it’s about the THREAT of violence, along with using other tools to achieve their goal of controlling the country, such as limiting voting access and controlling the counting and certification process. And it’s more than a few crazies, when senior members of the senate use the THREAT of violence to attempt to intimidate.
When the GOP LEADER SUPPORTS violence towards achieving that same goal, it’s borderline absurd to chuck this off as just a few crazies supporting violence.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
Are you still talking about the people who only attended the speech and didn't go to the capitol? If so, why? I am having a hard time following your point. Hard to say that the people who went to the capitol building yelling "stop the steal" and "hang mike pence" and "we're taking back out country yada" on the exact day and time the election was being certified didn't have any kind of intent.
When I brought up intent the other day, it was in context to a comment about violence and I had a physical takeover by force in my mind when discussion that. I'm sure all there wanted the election results over turned. I'm sure most were hoping to convince Pence to not certify it. But few had intentions of violence or a forceful takeover of government or any physical harm to the public officials present.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
Are you still talking about the people who only attended the speech and didn't go to the capitol? If so, why? I am having a hard time following your point. Hard to say that the people who went to the capitol building yelling "stop the steal" and "hang mike pence" and "we're taking back out country yada" on the exact day and time the election was being certified didn't have any kind of intent.
When I brought up intent the other day, it was in context to a comment about violence and I had a physical takeover by force in my mind when discussion that. I'm sure all there wanted the election results over turned. I'm sure most were hoping to convince Pence to not certify it. But few had intentions of violence or a forceful takeover of government or any physical harm to the public officials present.
Sure. Sounds like you are saying they wanted a peaceful coup instead of a peaceful transition of power. That does not make much sense.
I think a lot of them were there to support their leader. But weren't willing to go that extra mile that Raccoon Head et al was. and what happened actually bears it out; THE MAJORITY DID NOT GET VIOLENT.
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
Are you still talking about the people who only attended the speech and didn't go to the capitol? If so, why? I am having a hard time following your point. Hard to say that the people who went to the capitol building yelling "stop the steal" and "hang mike pence" and "we're taking back out country yada" on the exact day and time the election was being certified didn't have any kind of intent.
When I brought up intent the other day, it was in context to a comment about violence and I had a physical takeover by force in my mind when discussion that. I'm sure all there wanted the election results over turned. I'm sure most were hoping to convince Pence to not certify it. But few had intentions of violence or a forceful takeover of government or any physical harm to the public officials present.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Biden: Russia 'shamelessly violated' UN Charter in Ukraine
By AAMER MADHANI
3 mins ago
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Joe Biden declared at the United Nations Wednesday that Russia has “shamelessly violated the core tenets" of the U.N with its "brutal, needless war” in Ukraine. He said the war is an affront to the heart of what the international body stands for as he looked to rally allies to stand firm in backing the Ukrainian resistance.
Delivering a forceful condemnation of Russia's seven-month invasion, Biden said reports of Russian abuses against civilians in Ukraine “should make your blood run cold." And he said President Vladimir Putin’s new nuclear threats against Europe showed “reckless disregard” for Russia's responsibilities as a signer of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
He criticized Russia for scheduling “sham referenda” this week in territory it has forcibly seized in Ukraine.
“A permanent member of the U..N Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map. Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the U.N. charter," he told his U.N. audience.
Biden called on all nations, whether democracies or autocracies, to speak out against Russia's invasion and to bolster's Ukraine effort to defend itself.
“We will stand in solidarity against Russia’s aggression, period," Biden said.
Biden also highlighted consequences of the invasion for the world's food supply, pledging $2.9 billion in global food security aid to address shortages caused by the war and the effects of climate change. He praised a U.N.-brokered effort to create a corridor for Ukrainian grain to be exported by sea, and called on the agreement to be continued despite the ongoing conflict.
Biden, during his time at the U.N. General Assembly, also planned to meet Wednesday with new British Prime Minister Liz Truss and press allies to meet an $18 billion target to replenish the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
But the heart of the president's visit to the U.N. this year was his full-throated censure of Russia as its war nears the seven-month mark.
The address came as Russian-controlled regions of eastern and southern Ukraine have announced plans to hold Kremllin-backed referendums in days ahead on becoming part of Russia and as Moscow is losing ground in the invasion. Russian President Putin on Wednesday announced a partial mobilization to call up 300,000 reservists and accused the West of engaging in “nuclear blackmail.”
The White House said the global food security funding includes $2 billion in direct humanitarian assistance through the United States Agency for International Development. The balance of the money will go to global development projects meant to boost the efficiency and resilience of the global food supply.
“This new announcement of $2.9 billion will save lives through emergency interventions and invest in medium- to long-term food security assistance in order to protect the world’s most vulnerable populations from the escalating global food security crisis,” the White House said.
Biden was confronting no shortage of difficult issues as leaders gather this year.
When he addressed last year’s General Assembly, Biden focused on broad themes of global partnership, urging world leaders to act with haste against the coronavirus, climate change and human rights abuses. And he offered assurances that his presidency marked a return of American leadership to international institutions following Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
But one year later, global dynamics have dramatically changed.
Stewart Patrick, senior fellow and director of the Global Order and Institutions Program at the Washington think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in an analysis that Biden’s task this year is “immense” compared to his first address to the U.N. as president.
“Last year, the U.S. leader won easy plaudits as the ‘anti-Trump,’ pledging that ‘America was back,’” Patrick said. “This year demands more. The liberal, rules-based international system is reeling, battered by Russian aggression, Chinese ambitions, authoritarian assaults, a halting pandemic recovery, quickening climate change, skepticism of the U.N.’s relevance, and gnawing doubts about American staying power.”
Beyond diplomacy, the president is also doing some politicking. This year's gathering comes less than seven weeks before pivotal midterm elections in the United States. Shortly after arriving in Manhattan on Tuesday night, Biden spoke at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser for about 100 participants that raised nearly $2 million, and he's set to hold another fundraiser on Thursday before heading back to Washington.
His Wednesday address comes on the heels of Ukrainian forces retaking control of large stretches of territory near Kharkiv. But even as Ukrainian forces have racked up battlefield wins, much of Europe is feeling painful blowback from economic sanctions levied against Russia. A vast reduction in Russian oil and gas has led to a sharp jump in energy prices, skyrocketing inflation and growing risk of Europe slipping into a recession.
Biden's visit to the U.N. also comes as his administration's efforts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal appears stalled.
The deal brokered by the Obama administration — and scrapped by Trump in 2018 — provided billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for Iran’s agreement to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its facilities to extensive international inspection.
Sullivan said no breakthrough with Iran is expected during the General Assembly but Biden would make clear in his speech that a deal can still be done "if Iran is prepared to be serious about its obligations." He added that administration officials would be consulting with fellow signatories of the 2015 deal on the sidelines of this week's meetings.
This year's U.N. gathering is back to being a full-scale, in-person event after two years of curtailed activity due to the pandemic. In 2020, the in-person gathering was canceled and leaders instead delivered prerecorded speeches; last year was a mix of in-person and prerecorded speeches. Biden and first lady Jill Biden were set to host a leaders' reception on Wednesday evening.
China's President Xi Jinping opted not to attend this year's U.N. gathering, but his country's conduct and intentions will loom large during the leaders' talks.
Last month, the U.N. human rights office raised concerns about possible “crimes against humanity” in China's western region against Uyghurs and other largely Muslim ethnic groups. Beijing has vowed to suspend cooperation with the office and blasted what it described as a Western plot to undermine China’s rise.
Meanwhile, China’s government on Monday said Biden’s statement in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview that American forces would defend Taiwan if Beijing tried to invade the self-ruled island was a violation of U.S. commitments on the matter, but it gave no indication of possible retaliation.
The White House said after the interview that there has been no change in U.S. policy on Taiwan, which China claims as its own. That policy says Washington wants to see Taiwan’s status resolved peacefully but doesn’t say whether U.S. forces might be sent in response to a Chinese attack.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
"They're all on videotape literally yelling, ranting and raving, about how they wanted to hang the vice president and to take back their country back with force. A lot of the magamorons who pled guilty said they were there trying to help Trump stay in office. Most of them probably thought Trump was going to be there with them since he said he was going to and they believe everything that chronological liar says."
they terrorise and intimidate as that’s the entire point of any of these far right gatherings when they parade around cities, often carrying guns. Until they act they are doing it legally
stepping one foot inside the capital then it changes
combine the violence with the threat of more violence by brandishing guns, with changing voting and certification laws, topped off with a friendly court, and that’s more than enough to get the job done.
Looking at how GOP voters flocked to support trump candidates in the primaries after his decision to go violent is more than enough proof.
the fact that Cheney agrees more with me than you is a bit daunting.
some had legit intentions to "take back the country" by any means necessary.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
The people who went to the capitol (which is the crowd I have only been talking about) knew damn well what they were trying to do.
“To be part of ‘something’ their cult leader was attending”.
My goodness that’s a generous assessment… far too generous IMO, but you’re entitled to yours as much as I am mine.
-EV 8/14/93
are they nutcases? are they delusional? are they bigots and racists? were they grifted by an orange idiot they all think is the second coming? yep. doesn't mean they all went to hang mike pence.
-EV 8/14/93
you have to separate the lawful gathering Vs the illegal breach of the capital. Once it’s illegal anyone who did something illegal should get the book thrown at them and probably should all get charged with major crimes.
in this case it’s exceedingly simple who went inside and who didn’t. There is a clear dividing line between legal and illegal.
Giving this cult the benefit of the doubt after all we've seen in the last 7 years completely defies logic.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
UNITED NATIONS (AP) — President Joe Biden declared at the United Nations Wednesday that Russia has “shamelessly violated the core tenets" of the U.N with its "brutal, needless war” in Ukraine. He said the war is an affront to the heart of what the international body stands for as he looked to rally allies to stand firm in backing the Ukrainian resistance.
Delivering a forceful condemnation of Russia's seven-month invasion, Biden said reports of Russian abuses against civilians in Ukraine “should make your blood run cold." And he said President Vladimir Putin’s new nuclear threats against Europe showed “reckless disregard” for Russia's responsibilities as a signer of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
He criticized Russia for scheduling “sham referenda” this week in territory it has forcibly seized in Ukraine.
“A permanent member of the U..N Security Council invaded its neighbor, attempted to erase a sovereign state from the map. Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the U.N. charter," he told his U.N. audience.
Biden called on all nations, whether democracies or autocracies, to speak out against Russia's invasion and to bolster's Ukraine effort to defend itself.
“We will stand in solidarity against Russia’s aggression, period," Biden said.
Biden also highlighted consequences of the invasion for the world's food supply, pledging $2.9 billion in global food security aid to address shortages caused by the war and the effects of climate change. He praised a U.N.-brokered effort to create a corridor for Ukrainian grain to be exported by sea, and called on the agreement to be continued despite the ongoing conflict.
Biden, during his time at the U.N. General Assembly, also planned to meet Wednesday with new British Prime Minister Liz Truss and press allies to meet an $18 billion target to replenish the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
But the heart of the president's visit to the U.N. this year was his full-throated censure of Russia as its war nears the seven-month mark.
The address came as Russian-controlled regions of eastern and southern Ukraine have announced plans to hold Kremllin-backed referendums in days ahead on becoming part of Russia and as Moscow is losing ground in the invasion. Russian President Putin on Wednesday announced a partial mobilization to call up 300,000 reservists and accused the West of engaging in “nuclear blackmail.”
The White House said the global food security funding includes $2 billion in direct humanitarian assistance through the United States Agency for International Development. The balance of the money will go to global development projects meant to boost the efficiency and resilience of the global food supply.
“This new announcement of $2.9 billion will save lives through emergency interventions and invest in medium- to long-term food security assistance in order to protect the world’s most vulnerable populations from the escalating global food security crisis,” the White House said.
Biden was confronting no shortage of difficult issues as leaders gather this year.
In addition to the Russian war in Ukraine, European fears that a recession could be just around the corner are heightened. Administration concerns grow by the day that time is running short to revive the Iran nuclear deal and over China's saber-rattling on Taiwan.
When he addressed last year’s General Assembly, Biden focused on broad themes of global partnership, urging world leaders to act with haste against the coronavirus, climate change and human rights abuses. And he offered assurances that his presidency marked a return of American leadership to international institutions following Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.
But one year later, global dynamics have dramatically changed.
Stewart Patrick, senior fellow and director of the Global Order and Institutions Program at the Washington think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in an analysis that Biden’s task this year is “immense” compared to his first address to the U.N. as president.
“Last year, the U.S. leader won easy plaudits as the ‘anti-Trump,’ pledging that ‘America was back,’” Patrick said. “This year demands more. The liberal, rules-based international system is reeling, battered by Russian aggression, Chinese ambitions, authoritarian assaults, a halting pandemic recovery, quickening climate change, skepticism of the U.N.’s relevance, and gnawing doubts about American staying power.”
Beyond diplomacy, the president is also doing some politicking. This year's gathering comes less than seven weeks before pivotal midterm elections in the United States. Shortly after arriving in Manhattan on Tuesday night, Biden spoke at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser for about 100 participants that raised nearly $2 million, and he's set to hold another fundraiser on Thursday before heading back to Washington.
His Wednesday address comes on the heels of Ukrainian forces retaking control of large stretches of territory near Kharkiv. But even as Ukrainian forces have racked up battlefield wins, much of Europe is feeling painful blowback from economic sanctions levied against Russia. A vast reduction in Russian oil and gas has led to a sharp jump in energy prices, skyrocketing inflation and growing risk of Europe slipping into a recession.
Biden's visit to the U.N. also comes as his administration's efforts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal appears stalled.
The deal brokered by the Obama administration — and scrapped by Trump in 2018 — provided billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for Iran’s agreement to dismantle much of its nuclear program and open its facilities to extensive international inspection.
Sullivan said no breakthrough with Iran is expected during the General Assembly but Biden would make clear in his speech that a deal can still be done "if Iran is prepared to be serious about its obligations." He added that administration officials would be consulting with fellow signatories of the 2015 deal on the sidelines of this week's meetings.
This year's U.N. gathering is back to being a full-scale, in-person event after two years of curtailed activity due to the pandemic. In 2020, the in-person gathering was canceled and leaders instead delivered prerecorded speeches; last year was a mix of in-person and prerecorded speeches. Biden and first lady Jill Biden were set to host a leaders' reception on Wednesday evening.
China's President Xi Jinping opted not to attend this year's U.N. gathering, but his country's conduct and intentions will loom large during the leaders' talks.
Last month, the U.N. human rights office raised concerns about possible “crimes against humanity” in China's western region against Uyghurs and other largely Muslim ethnic groups. Beijing has vowed to suspend cooperation with the office and blasted what it described as a Western plot to undermine China’s rise.
Meanwhile, China’s government on Monday said Biden’s statement in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview that American forces would defend Taiwan if Beijing tried to invade the self-ruled island was a violation of U.S. commitments on the matter, but it gave no indication of possible retaliation.
The White House said after the interview that there has been no change in U.S. policy on Taiwan, which China claims as its own. That policy says Washington wants to see Taiwan’s status resolved peacefully but doesn’t say whether U.S. forces might be sent in response to a Chinese attack.
___
Follow AP coverage of the U.N. General Assembly at https://apnews.com/hub/united-nations-general-assembly
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14