IlluMyFi

4 Years Later: Americans Still Divided Over January 6 When a large mob of Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in an alleged attempt to stop the certification of the 2020 presidential election, the images of the chaos unfolding at the historic building sent shockwaves around the world. After all, this was the United States, once a shining light of democracy, on what the media described as the precipice of political collapse.Fast forward four years and Donald Trump, the man who was widely condemned (even by members of his own party) and later indicted for his role in the proceedings, is about to return to the White House.Trump’s political comeback, which seemed impossible in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Capitol, was accompanied by a gradual shift in the narrative of the events of January 6.Back in 2021, Trump himself described the events as a “heinous attack on the United States Capitol”, promising that the protesters who had “defiled the seat of American democracy” would pay for their actions.And pay they did.As of December 6, 2024, the U.S. Justice Department had charged more than 1,500 individuals for federal crimes associated with the Capitol breach, of which almost 1,000 plead guilty to at least some of the charges and another 255 were found guilty in trial. And yet, in October 2024, Trump – now the Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election – no longer condemned the events of January 6, instead calling it “a day of love”, much to the outrage of the 138 police officers injured during the attack.And like Trump’s stance on the January rioters has softened – he even promised to pardon the “peaceful protesters” last May – so has the public view of what happened that day, at least among Republican voters. According to a recent poll conducted by YouGov and The Economist, 56 percent of Republicans would describe the January 6 events as “people participating in legitimate political discourse”, while just 19 percent would describe the scenes as a violent insurrection. You will find more infographics at StatistaUnsurprisingly, Democrats have opposing views of what happened, with 79 percent describing the events as a violent insurrection and just 9 percent seeing it as legitimate political protest.Propaganda works eh? Tyler DurdenMon, 01/06/2025 - 15:20

Sentiment

-0.57

Bearish/Bullish

07.01.25 04:25

by zerohedge.com

US Carriers Remain A Vital Power Projection Tool Despite Emerging Threats

US Carriers Remain A Vital Power Projection Tool Despite Emerging Threats Authored by Mike Fredenberg via The Epoch Times,Recent friendly fire incidents in the Red Sea—resulting in the loss of one Super Hornet and the near-destruction of another—underscore the growing risks faced by U.S. naval assets. Early reports suggest that a U.S. cruiser mistakenly launched air defense missiles to protect the USS Truman, a Nimitz-class carrier. Deploying a carrier of this size in the confined waters of the Red Sea raises questions about the future deployment of these vessels amid escalating threats.For decades, U.S. aircraft carriers have been unparalleled symbols of military might. Beyond their function as mobile airbases, they represent sovereign U.S. territory, capable of projecting power globally. Since World War II, no class of ship has played a more pivotal role in U.S. military strategy.The Unique Strategic Value of CarriersU.S. carriers are in a league of their own; no other nation’s fleet comes close to matching their scale, capability, or influence. Historically, carriers have operated with relative safety. Even during the Cold War, when Soviet submarines and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles posed potential risks, the carriers’ strategic value deterred direct attacks. Any significant assault on a U.S. carrier was widely understood as an act of war against the United States.The extraordinary investment in these vessels—with modern carriers costing over $10 billion and housing more than 5,000 personnel—elevates their importance. Their symbolic and strategic value means that an attack on a carrier would carry profound political and military consequences. While a U.S. president might downplay an attack on a destroyer, the same cannot be said for a carrier.Advances in Technology and Escalating ThreatsAlthough a maneuvering carrier in open waters remains a challenging target, emerging technologies and rising military powers pose increasing risks. Drones, in particular, represent a growing threat. In confined waters like the Red Sea, where widths range from 220 miles at their broadest to just 16 miles at their narrowest, carriers are more vulnerable. While airborne drones may not be capable of sinking a carrier, coordinated drone swarms could cripple flight operations and destroy carrier aircraft. Seaborne drones, including submersibles armed with large explosive payloads, also present significant risks.In addition, China’s advancements in satellite technology have enhanced its ability to locate and track U.S. naval vessels over long distances. This improved capability extends China’s “kill chain,” enabling its long-range anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles to target carriers with greater precision. These developments limit the tactical freedom U.S. carriers once enjoyed, especially in scenarios involving a potential blockade or invasion of Taiwan.Submarine and Missile ThreatsCarriers have long been vulnerable to submarines, particularly nuclear-powered ones fielded by Russia and China....

China