Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

ot. Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

If you had accurate evidence a genocide was taking place, it might help your argument. But this one is especially ironic coming from the guy who believes Russian bombing of civilian centers is just.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

He's actually on solid ground. You are either a troll or a hard core lib.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

---

LOL

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

ot. Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

If you had accurate evidence a genocide was taking place, it might help your argument. But this one is especially ironic coming from the guy who believes Russian bombing of civilian centers is just.

---

No one believes that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

ot. Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

If you had accurate evidence a genocide was taking place, it might help your argument. But this one is especially ironic coming from the guy who believes Russian bombing of civilian centers is just.

---

No one believes that.

---

Oh come on Sam. You have been bamboozled by the liberal hate machine. Stop buying what they are selling

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

---

LOL

---

You might need to watch that clip again...

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

ot. Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

If you had accurate evidence a genocide was taking place, it might help your argument. But this one is especially ironic coming from the guy who believes Russian bombing of civilian centers is just.

---

No one believes that.

---

Oh come on Sam. You have been bamboozled by the liberal hate machine. Stop buying what they are selling

---

You're right…I hate mass murder and genocide. Where shall I turn in my conservative membership card?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

ot. Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

Unfortunately, we have a poster in Sam Lowry who, while claiming to be a conservative, regularly takes the side of the despot and the evil. He's been that way for 20 plus years.

---

You're on some pretty shaky ground there as a genocide denier.

---

If you had accurate evidence a genocide was taking place, it might help your argument. But this one is especially ironic coming from the guy who believes Russian bombing of civilian centers is just.

---

No one believes that.

---

Well, certainly those who think Putin is a good guy, Israel is a bad guy, and Republicans are white supremacists don't.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

---

LOL

---

You might need to watch that clip again...

---

Her question is clear. And he's clearly evading it.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

---

LOL

---

You might need to watch that clip again...

---

Her question is clear. And he's clearly evading it.

---

No, it's not.

As you can see, sir...I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

Sam Lowry said:

---

As you can see, sir...I didn't leave the party, the party left me.

---

United Russia left you? Now that is some breaking news.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

But never use your weapon against such deadly threats. Molotov cocktails, concrete, bats, it's all good. Just arrest them as they're trying to kill you.

LOL.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

But never use your weapon against such deadly threats. Molotov cocktails, concrete, bats, it's all good. Just arrest them as they're trying to kill you.

LOL.

---

Not what she said.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

But never use your weapon against such deadly threats. Molotov cocktails, concrete, bats, it's all good. Just arrest them as they're trying to kill you.

LOL.

---

Not what she said.

---

She said arrest anyone that tries to use a piece of concrete against you. Arrest, don't use force.

So that is absolutely what she suggested.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

But never use your weapon against such deadly threats. Molotov cocktails, concrete, bats, it's all good. Just arrest them as they're trying to kill you.

LOL.

---

Not what she said.

---

She said arrest anyone that tries to use a piece of concrete against you. Arrest, don't use force.

So that is absolutely what she suggested.

---

Nope.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

But never use your weapon against such deadly threats. Molotov cocktails, concrete, bats, it's all good. Just arrest them as they're trying to kill you.

LOL.

---

Not what she said.

---

She said arrest anyone that tries to use a piece of concrete against you. Arrest, don't use force.

So that is absolutely what she suggested.

---

Nope.

---

Like I said, you need to listen to it again, apparently.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The senator asserted that Trump had "ordered" that the George Floyd protestors be shot in the legs. But it wasn't an order, it was an inquiry. That false assertion is what her question to Hegseth was based on, which is why Hegseth was understandably hesitant to dignify it with an answer.

Nazi Rally Inspires Millions

And two guys were arrested for placing bombs underneath a Fox News van last week. And that would be why the media is covering a late night talkshow host instead. https://t.co/v6QDYc6NnP

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 22, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

Sure, but of course none of that has anything to do with what she's asking. She refers specifically to a conversation with Esper and Milley in which Trump suggested simply shooting people in the legs in order to break up the protests. They were taken aback, as any reasonable person would be. It should not be difficult for Hegseth to concede as much, assuming he is a reasonable person and fit for the job.

---

The question she asked him was whether he would denounce lethal force against unarmed protestors. While she mentioned that conversation, she did not ask her question in a way that asked whether he agreed with Esper.

---

LOL

---

You might need to watch that clip again...

---

Her question is clear. And he's clearly evading it.

---

Start at 1:20 of the clip you sent. She gives a self-serving statement, and then begins the questions. There is no caveat. She simply asks,

"Have you authorized uniformed military to detain or arrest protestors in Los Angeles?"

He says, "Senator, I would just start by saying you are not a protestor if you are throwing concrete at officers."

She interrupts, stating: "100%. Throw those people in jail." She doesn't even leave open the possibility of using force on protestors throwing concrete, and does not broach the subject again.

He responds, "These troops are given very clear orders," at which point she interrupts him and says, "Be a man, list it out, did you authorize them to detain or arrest." Of course, she never gives him a chance to list out what their orders are, as she wants to grandstand and make political statements.

After she interrupts him several more times, he says, "If necessary, in their own self defense, they can temporarily detain and hand over to ICE. There is no arresting going on," at which point she interrupts him again to ask, "Have you authorized US military to use cybertools against members of the protest."

He responds, no.

She then asks, "Have you given the order to shoot at protestors in any way." She then goes on a diatribe about Trump's discussions with the former Sec. of Defense, and also insults him, and asks, "Have you given the order they can use lethal force against unarm...I want the answer to be no. Please tell me it's no. Have you given the order."

Again, a broad question, that doesn't put any caveats at all for instances in which military feel threatened for their lives, or are having dangerous objects thrown at them or swung at them.

So, in other words, you're full of **** as usual.

You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.

---

I would submit you're trying very, very hard to read something into the exchange that doesn't exist. I am not fan of Hegseth, but he answered the questions she asked (when she wasn't interrupting him with her grandstanding).

Get back to me when military officers start firing at the legs of unarmed protestors.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.

---

I would submit you're trying very, very hard to read something into the exchange that doesn't exist. I am not fan of Hegseth, but he answered the questions she asked (when she wasn't interrupting him with her grandstanding).

Get back to me when military officers start firing at the legs of unarmed protestors.

---

I'll bookmark "unarmed" in the dictionary just for you.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.

---

I would submit you're trying very, very hard to read something into the exchange that doesn't exist. I am not fan of Hegseth, but he answered the questions she asked (when she wasn't interrupting him with her grandstanding).

Get back to me when military officers start firing at the legs of unarmed protestors.

---

I'll bookmark "unarmed" in the dictionary just for you.

---

Better yet, why don't you tell us what she means by unarmed, because her previous comments suggest deadly force shouldn't be used against even those hurling concrete at military personnel. But she does say they can be arrested (though by whom, I am not sure, since she seems to claim the military can't arrest or detain anyone).

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.

Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.

Jacques Strap said:

---

And two guys were arrested for placing bombs underneath a Fox News van last week. And that would be why the media is covering a late night talkshow host instead. https://t.co/v6QDYc6NnP

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) September 22, 2025

---

Yes sir folks.......


'both' sides are to blame for the violence.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.

Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.

---

No, she doesn't want him shot. She just wants him to be arrested. By somebody.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

You're trying very, very hard not to comprehend the exchange.

---

I would submit you're trying very, very hard to read something into the exchange that doesn't exist. I am not fan of Hegseth, but he answered the questions she asked (when she wasn't interrupting him with her grandstanding).

Get back to me when military officers start firing at the legs of unarmed protestors.

---

I'll bookmark "unarmed" in the dictionary just for you.

---

Better yet, why don't you tell us what she means by unarmed, because her previous comments suggest deadly force shouldn't be used against even those hurling concrete at military personnel. But she does say they can be arrested (though by whom, I am not sure, since she seems to claim the military can't arrest or detain anyone).

---

It's all there in the video.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.

Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.

---

She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.

Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.

---

She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.

---

That's worse if she is normalizing the physical assault of police officers carrying out their duties by violent political mobs and implies that is acceptable and no other measures should be taken to stop them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

First of all I don't know if Hegseth is actually on any ballot. Certainly none in Texas.

Secondly, if he were on the ballot one could feel comfortable voting for someone who is placing the rule of law over criminal behavior and anarchy.

Are we a nation of laws by, of, & for the people or are we nation in which criminals rule the streets and sane people cower in fear? Wolves or sheep, good vs evil: it's an easy choice.

---

Using the military to violate constitutional rights is the opposite of the rule of law.

---

No one has a constitutional right to obstruct justice, aid criminals, or prevent the government's legally constituted agents from completing their constitutionally authorized duties. The constitution does authorize, however, the government to suppress rebellion. What those drink ska were going certainly qualifies. Also, every government agent takes an oath to uphold the constitution and to defend the nation from enemies, foreign and domestic. By their actions these people made themselves the domestic enemies of the US. It's all pretty straightforward and completely constitutional.

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearlySpeaking said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

ScottS said:

---

Think Sam and 1947 would vote for him?

---

Personally, I think Sam is reachable. He and I share opinions about Ukraine and what is currently going on in Gaza with Israel's overreach. I think at some point on the Democrat escalator to hell, he will do a U-turn. While I think his facts are wrong, I think he still tries to reason through things as he sees them.

1947, I don't think Anakin still exists behind that black mask.

---

I've never voted for a Democrat. How can I vote for this kind of Republican? The video is worth watching in full.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-hegseth-wont-say-whether-he-allowed-the-military-to-arrest-detain-use-lethal-force-on-protesters

---

I can think of several reasons you should vote Republican, and hold your nose if you have to:



In short, there was a much worse alternative this last election cycle, if you cared at all about traditional Judeo-Christian values. Of course, when you buy the bullsh propaganda that the other side are "white supremacists," as you do, there's not much hope for you.

As for the clip of Hegseth's exchange with the grandstanding Slotkin, I am surprised at how easily you got suckered into what was clearly an attempt to garner a soundbite. I watched the entire video (not just your edited clip), and Slotkin's use of the term "unarmed" is interesting. It seemed to me she was referring to "armed" as individuals who had guns, but of course she is purposely vague in her use of that term.

However, if an "unarmed" protestor attempts to use deadly force on an ICE agent, is the national guard justified in using its weapons on those individuals? Let's say the protestor is throwing chunks of concrete, spraying law enforcement with mace, throwing Molotov cocktails or using bats and metal poles - things that happened with regularity during the BLM riots, by Antifa during the Occupy riots, and by Palestinian protestors. Should the national guard merely try to "arrest" those individuals, as Slotkin suggests? Or might throwing chunks of concrete and using metal bats and Molotov cocktails pose a deadly threat in some instances? I think any reasonable person would agree that such "unarmed" "protestors" would indeed pose a risk of great bodily harm.

So, yeah, I am just not seeing how refusing to say that weapons should not be used on "protestors" who pose a deadly threat is all that newsworthy. I am not seeing how Hegseth saying the national guard can briefly detain an individual, to allow law enforcement make an arrest, is all that controversial. And I don't think any reasonable person would see that as controversial either.

Oh, and love how she accused him of not having balls or guts. Classy, Senator.

---

It shows how much mass civic/political violence has been normalized since 2020 that people openly defend these criminals that strike at the heart of our social contract and believe the violence they inflict on others should be seen as regular 1st Amendment protest.

---

No one's defending them. Obviously you didn't read my posts in 2020.

---

There are plenty of people defending them and the political violence they inflict on our communities.

---

Like the senator said, if they're throwing concrete, lock them up.

---

Sure, one person throwing concrete, shoot him or lock him up.

Multiple violent groups of people like we have seen since 2020 who gang up on policemen trying to arrest people? We're talking a different situation. Like I said, the senator has normalized mass political violence; it's just a guy or two throwing concrete.

---

She was responding to his example. There's no reason to think either of them was limiting it to a guy or two.

---

That's worse if she is normalizing the physical assault of police officers carrying out their duties by violent political mobs and implies that is acceptable and no other measures should be taken to stop them.

---

Deadly force can be used when and only when necessary. She implies nothing else.