By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent CNN interview, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claimed the U.S. has never tolerated “unlawful riotous assemblies” at federal buildings, drawing immediate criticism. Critics pointed out that the Trump administration had pardoned over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. This contradiction emerged amidst debates over the deployment of federal agents in Portland, Oregon, where local officials dispute the extent of violence compared to the administration’s claims. A federal judge, in a ruling against the Trump administration’s actions in Portland, agreed that the president had overstepped his authority.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller asks when the US has allowed ‘riotous assemblies.’ The internet responds with a resounding chorus of historical examples and biting critiques. The question itself seems to have struck a nerve, sparking a flurry of reactions that range from sarcastic retorts to deeply critical analyses of Miller’s motivations and the historical context of his query. Many online are quick to point out the obvious: the American Revolution, a foundational event in the nation’s history, was, by definition, a riotous assembly. The Boston Tea Party, a pivotal act of rebellion, is specifically mentioned as a prime example, highlighting the irony of Miller’s question. It’s as if the very foundation of the nation is being questioned, and the internet, at least in this instance, is having none of it.
The discussions quickly delve into the January 6th Capitol riot, with many expressing their belief that Miller is attempting to rewrite history and excuse the actions of those involved. The consensus seems to be that Miller is selectively applying definitions and historical understanding, conveniently overlooking the events of January 6th while attempting to paint a different picture of the current political landscape. The internet is not only calling out the hypocrisy, but also questioning the intent behind Miller’s question. Many see it as a deliberate attempt to confuse and mislead, a tactic often associated with bad-faith actors.
Furthermore, there are intense accusations of hypocrisy, considering the known events from January 6th. The reactions are also laced with disdain, particularly towards Miller’s role and the political figures he is associated with. The responses showcase a level of frustration and anger, born of the belief that Miller is operating in bad faith. The common theme across the various statements is a rejection of Miller’s apparent historical revisionism and a condemnation of the actions of those he seems to be defending.
The conversation also touches upon broader issues, such as the increasing polarization of American politics and the erosion of shared understanding of historical events. The responses reflect a sense of weariness with the constant attempts to distort the truth and manipulate public opinion. There are frequent comments that address Miller’s character and appearance. These comments add a layer of personal animosity to the debate. However, the core of the responses centers around calling out the inaccuracies in his statements.
Additionally, the internet is showcasing various instances of irony and sarcasm. The nature of his question, in light of recent events, is seen as absurd. Many express disbelief that Miller would even ask such a question, especially given his political associations and past actions. The response to Miller’s question is a testament to the collective memory of the internet and its ability to quickly recall and disseminate information.
The nature of Miller’s question itself is the subject of intense scrutiny. People are asking why he would pose such a query. The responses suggest that the question is not meant to be taken at face value. Rather, it’s interpreted as a carefully constructed attempt to push a specific agenda, namely, to discredit opposing views and to further a particular political narrative.
The responses clearly demonstrate that Miller’s query has been met with a robust and critical counter-narrative. The internet’s collective memory, historical awareness, and critical thinking skills are being put to work in response to Miller’s statement. The online discussion surrounding Miller’s question reflects a deep-seated distrust of politicians and a keen awareness of the importance of historical accuracy and the preservation of truth. The responses are an expression of resistance to what is perceived as a dangerous trend in political discourse.
It is clear that those responding believe that the historical record speaks for itself. The internet is actively engaging in a debate that will likely continue to evolve as events unfold. The reactions reveal a deeply rooted skepticism toward figures like Stephen Miller and a commitment to fact-checking and critical analysis.