Liz Cheney: The GOP is at a turning point. History is watching us

55,806 Views | 1080 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Oldbear83
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

The Trump haters are out in farce this morning!
Farce is correct relative to your take on Trumpy.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Oldbear83 said:

The Trump haters are out in farce this morning!
Farce is correct relative to your take on Trumpy.
I hope you grow up while I am still alive to see it, J.R.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Cajole with Molotov cocktails and guns

Man charged with bringing molotov cocktails to Capitol on Jan. 6 has Texas militia ties, contacted Ted Cruz's office, court papers allege

The government said a search of Lonnie Coffman's truck and person recovered several weapons, including a semiautomatic rifle.

An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.
Prosecutors included photos of weapons that officials allegedly found during Coffman's arrest.
Coffman was arrested by happenstance on Jan. 6, according to charging papers, after police spotted weapons in his red pickup truck while searching an area of Capitol Hill that had been sealed off because unexploded pipe bombs had been reported near Republican and Democratic party headquarters minutes before the mob assault began, at about 1 p.m.
No arrests related to the pipe bombs have been made.
Coffman has pleaded not guilty to a federal indictment charging him with 16 counts of D.C. firearms violations and one federal firearms count.
In a 24-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of Washington denied Coffman's request for bond. The judge found that sealed government filings "convincingly demonstrate[d]" his planned intentions to disrupt Congress in potential coordination with others.
The ruling does not say that coordination was realized. However, combined with his cache of weapons, "this evidence indicates that Mr. Coffman had potential plans to coordinate with other members of the January 6, 2021 riots at the United States Capitol," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.
Coffman kept additional firearms, improvised explosives and papers in his home related to a second armed group, the judge said. A list he kept of a federal judge and Democratic lawmakers, combined with other evidence, "raises serious concerns about Mr. Coffman's desire and ability to engage in politically motivated violence" and shows that he poses too great a risk of flight and public dangerousness to free him, the opinion concluded.
The judge issued her ruling without a hearing; details of prosecutors' claims do not appear to have been previously disclosed.
Coffman's court-appointed attorney declined to comment.
FBI charging papers have alleged that, on Coffman's person and in his truck, authorities found 11 homemade, molotov-cocktail-type incendiary devices; a rifle, a shotgun, two 9mm pistols and a .22-caliber pistol all loaded; as well as a crossbow, several machetes, a stun gun and smoke devices.
Prosecutors alleged that the 11 jars were made with gasoline and melted plastic foam to produce a dangerous "napalm-like" explosion of sticky, flammable liquid.
In 2014, the FBI identified Coffman as a participant at Camp Lonestar, an encampment set up that year in Brownsville, Tex., by armed citizens, some wearing military fatigues, with the stated goal of pushing back illegal immigrants crossing the border, the judge's opinion said.
Coffman was armed with a "crack barrel 12 gauge shotgun and a 9mm pistol" at the time, the judge said, citing a prosecutor's filing.
The camp subsequently disbanded, and several volunteer members and leaders were found guilty of weapons violations, according to news accounts.
On the evening of Jan. 6, when Coffman was arrested returning to his truck, his wallet contained a piece of paper with the address for Camp Lonestar and contact information for a member of the American Patriots armed group of Southeast Texas, prosecutors alleged, according to the ruling.
The opinion did not further identify the group. The papers in his home referred to a second group, the Southwest Desert Militia, the ruling said.
A tracking device in Coffman's GMC truck also showed that on Dec. 11 he drove around the U.S. Capitol and attempted to drive to Cruz's D.C.-area residence, prosecutors said, according to the judge. That same day, Coffman called Cruz's Senate office.
Staffers for the Texas Republican concluded that Coffman "did not seem threatening," but seemed "unbalanced" or "not 100% there" and deemed his comments "odd enough to record," Capitol Police noted, according to the ruling.
Office notes of Coffman's call stated: "Man says that he went to [Senator Cruz's] DC home to visit him with no answer at the door, and then called to try to arrange a meeting with him over the phone. Directed him to the scheduler's email address. He is also looking for contact info for S. Hannity, M. Levin, and R. Limbaugh," the judge's ruling said, referring to conservative commentators Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh.
A Cruz aide also noted that Coffman seemed "to be coming from the 'friend' angle in wanting to . . . help with the election fraud he saw," according to the filing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/molotov-cocktail-capitol-riot/2021/05/24/b97c5e6c-bce1-11eb-b26e-53663e6be6ff_story.html
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"

That will mean something if a jury agrees. For now, it's not that much.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"

That will mean something if a jury agrees. For now, it's not that much.
It meant something to the judge who ordered continued detention
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"



No no. Not plans. POTENTIAL plans. Those are far worse than plans. They are almost bad as INCLINATIONS or PROCLIVITIES, but not quite up to the level of BIG IDEAS or ASPIRATIONS.

Definitely an insurrection. For sure.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

Oldbear83 said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"

That will mean something if a jury agrees. For now, it's not that much.
It meant something to the judge who ordered continued detention
Time will tell. I am not impressed with vague insinuation, but would rather wait for hard facts to come out.

Judges have been known to act on impulse rather than good judgment, by the way. Not saying that is necessarily the case here, but the public attention does drive a certain narrative.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

Rawhide said:

HuMcK said:

I wonder how much Venn-diagram overlap exists of people who refuse to call 1/6 an insurrection, but called the impeachment a "coup"?
I'm curious about the same thing from people that call the capitol building incident an insurrection but the summer insurrection a peaceful protest

Just like nobody is mixing in pro-life protests with the Capitol insurrection and calling it all insurrection, you don't need to be mixing together the 95% peaceful protests over the summer with the 5% that ended up being riots and destructive.

It is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, though I know you just parrot it from whatever news source you read/watch, which seeks to pit you against the other side by convincing you they're all bad.

Protesting is one of the most America things ever. It is true things got way out of hand, and I don't know what you call trying to burn down federal courthouses.

But if the stated goal was to protest inequality, that's simply different from stating that you want to throw out the Presidential vote, hang the Vice President, and install a dictator.

That's not saying both were equally destructive, but words have meaning, and one type of riot fits the description of insurrection. The other is more like adults throwing screaming tantrums, throwing things across the room, stealing mommy's money out of her purse to get back at her.
Quite the mental gymnastics their cupcake. I give you a 9 for style but a 1 for execution.

These "protests" took over city blocks in attempt to overthrow the local gov't and create a new country. Calling for the defunding of police department (gov't authority) setting fires and breaking into gov't buildings, terrorizing citizens, shooting police officers and assaulting anyone that didn't agree with them.

But okay, sure.... they're just "protesting".
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Osodecentx said:

Canon said:

Were these found in the capitol? Was he armed with these in the capitol?

Citing random crazies with things in their trucks they neither used in the capitol or at all, to justify absurd claims of insurrection is conspiracy at its best.
An Alabama man charged with bringing five loaded firearms and 11 molotov cocktails with napalm-like properties to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 approached Sen. Ted Cruz's Washington home and office weeks earlier to discuss "election fraud" and previously joined an armed-citizen camp at the Texas border, new court filings alleged Monday.
The new U.S. allegations came in a federal judge's ruling ordering the continued detention of Lonnie Leroy Coffman, of Falkville, Ala., citing evidence that he had potential plans to coordinate with others and was prepared for political violence.
The 71-year-old Army veteran is awaiting trial on charges of possessing some of the deadliest unregistered weapons and explosives on the day of the riots that breached the Capitol, led to assaults on nearly 140 police officers and forced the evacuation of Congress.


"He had potential plans to coordinate" to use things he left in his truck or at home? Oh my! Definitely an insurrection.

Was he even in the capitol?

You are a conspiracy theorist. Random nuts who didn't do anything don't prove anything either.
"citing evidence he had plans"



No no. Not plans. POTENTIAL plans. Those are far worse than plans. They are almost bad as INCLINATIONS or PROCLIVITIES, but not quite up to the level of BIG IDEAS or ASPIRATIONS.

Definitely an insurrection. For sure.
Jailing of 2 in officer's assault highlights legal debate over detaining Capitol breach defendants
A federal judge ordered two men charged in the Jan. 6 assault of officer Brian D. Sicknick to remain jailed pending trial, saying they engaged in a chemical-spray attack that contributed to the breach of the U.S. Capitol.
The ruling Tuesday highlighted the legal debate judges have struggled with in deciding when to detain riot defendants who may not have criminal histories but who are accused of participating in the chaos and mayhem at the Capitol while prepared for violence.
U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan of Washington ruled that government videos of the assault on Sicknick and two other officers showed a degree of premeditation between childhood friends Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of Morgantown, W.Va., demonstrating their future dangerousness to the public.
"These two gentlemen are law-abiding, respected individuals in the community, and it makes it very difficult for the court to make this conclusion," Hogan said, "but they still committed this attack on uniformed police officers. I don't find a way around that."
Hogan said he could "not turn a blind eye" to an unprovoked attack against two groups of officers at a thin point in police lines, including Sicknick, 42, who was injured while attempting to hold back a violent crowd on the west terrace of the Capitol around 2:20 p.m.
Sicknick, a U.S. Capitol Police officer, collapsed hours later and died the next day of natural causes, officials said. Neither of the jailed men is alleged to have caused Sicknick's death.
Khater and Tanios, who ran smoothie and sandwich shops in their respective college towns, were arrested March 15 on nine counts, including in the assaults on Sicknick, a fellow Capitol Police officer and a D.C. officer.
The ruling in one of the most publicized attacks in the Jan. 6 riot comes as federal judges have detained at least 50 of more than 380 defendants charged with federal offenses. Still, courts have struggled to inject some clarity into deciding which of the people charged should be held pending trial, despite the usual presumption of innocence.
Those detained account for about 15 percent of the total charged so far, and more than one-quarter of those who face felony charges in the riot, which authorities have said led to five deaths, assaults on nearly 130 police officers and delayed Congress's certification of Joe Biden's presidential election win.
The percentage of Jan. 6 defendants jailed pretrial is lower than the nearly 75 percent of federal defendants nationwide, a figure fueled partly by federal charges involving crimes of violence and gun, drug or immigration-related offenses that commonly raise concerns about community or flight risks during detention hearings.
By contrast, many riot defendants are not accused of violence, have no criminal history and have stable family and community ties and seemingly pose less risk of flight or danger to the public, the criteria judges use for requiring detention.
Judges have also been less willing to detain defendants pretrial because the coronavirus pandemic has delayed jury trials and the massive scale of the Jan. 6 investigation is requiring more time to decide individual cases, raising concerns that defendants could wait longer for trial in jail than any sentence they might face if convicted.
For those and other reasons, prosecutors initially did not push to hold some individuals charged with violent offenses. However, that inconsistency has rippled through other cases, pointed out by defense attorneys, even for defendants accused of assaulting police with metal bats, wooden planks, fire extinguishers and other weapons.
In a rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has already issued two detention rulings in Capitol breach-related cases, underscoring the uncertainty surrounding detention questions.
The first opinion from the appeals court led to the release of Lisa Eisenhart and Eric Munchel, a mother and son from Tennessee who allegedly entered the Senate chamber with a Taser and plastic handcuffs. An appeals panel ruled on March 26 that a lower court failed to clearly define the future dangerousness either posed outside the circumstances of Jan. 6 and the presence of a mob that day.
After some judges called that standard too lax, an appeals panel on May 5 in an unpublished opinion pointed out another passage in the earlier ruling stating that those who actually assaulted police, broke through barricades, doors or windows, or planned or coordinated such actions "are in a different category of dangerousness" than those who cheered on the violence. That decision upheld the pretrial detention of Christopher Worrell, a Florida man who allegedly directed pepper-spray gel at officers.
Hogan drew heavily on that "categorical" divide, saying it was hard to find consistency in jailing decisions "except perhaps where there is violent conduct against police officers."
"If any crime establishes danger to the community and a disregard for the rule of law, assaulting a riot-gear-clad police officer does," Hogan said.
The judge quoted an April decision by colleague Royce C. Lamberth, who ordered the detention of Scott Fairlamb, a New Jersey gym owner who allegedly pushed and punched an officer.
Hogan said that it could not be denied that the violent attack on the Capitol posed "a grave danger to our democracy," and that it appeared to him that Khater and Tanios "prepared and executed a violent assault against officers during the riot to interfere with Congress carrying out its constitutional mandate."
The government played video of the attack during hearings for Khater and Tanios, which prosecutors say shows premeditation.
"Give me that bear sh--," Khater said to Tanios on video recorded at 2:14 p.m. at the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol, where Sicknick and other officers were standing guard behind metal bicycle racks, arrest papers say
"Hold on, hold on, not yet, not yet . . . it's still early," Tanios allegedly replied, which Assistant U.S. Attorney Gilead Light argued showed planning and intent to incapacitate officers at a decisive moment.
Nine minutes later, Khater allegedly sprayed a canister that Tanios had purchased and carried to the Capitol in his backpack, deploying it at close range injuring Sicknick, temporarily blinding and scarring another U.S. Capitol Police officer identified as C. Edwards and removing a D.C. police officer identified as B. Chapman from the police line.
Khater allegedly moved to spray a second group before he was repelled by a police lieutenant spraying a chemical irritant from a "Super Soaker"-type device, Hogan said.
"Only then does he stop," Hogan said. "It was not in the heat of passion. He had nine minutes to cool down."
Tanios attorney Elizabeth Gross argued for home confinement, saying he was 30 feet away from Khater when he sprayed the officers and did not aid or abet any crime.
"His only plans were to attend this rally," said Gross, an assistant federal defender from Clarksburg, W.Va. "The intent wasn't to go to a riot. The intent was to go to a rally to support their president."
Khater attorney Joseph Tacopina said that 16 family members pledged to secure his home confinement on a $1.5 million bond, and that he never coordinated or planned to attack police and never entered the Capitol.
"It wasn't a plan. It was a reaction" to being sprayed by police, Tacopina said. "He did not use bear spray, he used a defensive spray."
Still, Hogan said, the officers were disabled Sicknick walked off for 10 to 15 minutes in a "sort of daze" while trying to recover and the crowd in short order broke down the barrier and surged through the thinned police line.
"It is clear Mr. Khater deliberately sprayed the officers trying to hold the line," Hogan said. "I don't think they are the direct proximate cause of the breach of the line up and down, but they certainly contributed to the rioters' ability to breach police lines at that point."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/sicknick-assault-defendants-jailed/2021/05/11/cfd03dfa-b26e-11eb-ab43-bebddc5a0f65_story.html
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

J.R. said:

Oldbear83 said:

The Trump haters are out in farce this morning!
Farce is correct relative to your take on Trumpy.
I hope you grow up while I am still alive to see it, J.R.
I hope you learn to communicate and not be a zealot !
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Oldbear83 said:

J.R. said:

Oldbear83 said:

The Trump haters are out in farce this morning!
Farce is correct relative to your take on Trumpy.
I hope you grow up while I am still alive to see it, J.R.
I hope you learn to communicate and not be a zealot !
Oh, I did that long ago. You just don't understand that, since you are locked in Trumphate.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
BearFan33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The left continues to project their impulses onto Trump
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
I have not dismissed a thing. A riot is never a good thing, and stopping them is one of the primary reasons we engage in social contract. Those who engaged in violence inside the capitol should be held accountable, as should leftists who for months have engaged in violence against police and government buildings elsewhere. In no small part, we see so much political violence because we have been so dilatory in responding to it. We cannot let one side run amok and then gasp in horror the first time the same stuff breaks out on the other end of the spectrum. Worse, you cannot excuse leftist violence as protected speech that got out of hand, and then contrive beyond worst case interpretations when things get out of hand on the other end of the spectrum. Repressive tolerance is just repression, and the more you propose it, the worse things are going to get.

An insurrection is a bad thing, too. Fortunately, we have not had one no matter how much you stir your little cauldron of contrived grievances.


Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

"cajole: to persuade with flattery or gentle urging, especially in the face of reluctance; to obtain from someone by gentle persuasion."

I've had this same debate with people on the left. Heard all the excuses about how Antifa doesn't have a formal national structure and therefore it doesn't exist and can't be responsible for anything. It's nonsense. Do you think the government ever monitors leaderless Facebook groups? Why would they do that?
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
I have not dismissed a thing. A riot is never a good thing, and stopping them is one of the primary reasons we engage in social contract. Those who engaged in violence inside the capitol should be held accountable, as should leftists who for months have engaged in violence against police and government buildings elsewhere. In no small part, we see so much political violence because we have been so dilatory in responding to it. We cannot let one side run amok and then gasp in horror the first time the same stuff breaks out on the other end of the spectrum. Worse, you cannot excuse leftist violence as protected speech that got out of hand, and then contrive beyond worst case interpretations when things get out of hand on the other end of the spectrum. Repressive tolerance is just repression, and the more you propose it, the worse things are going to get.

An insurrection is a bad thing, too. Fortunately, we have not had one no matter how much you stir your little cauldron of contrived grievances.



I haven't dismissed leftist violence. They should be held accountable, and they shouldn't be excused just because the extremist want to excuse Trump's not so smart insurrectionists.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
Turner Diaries sez Hi.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
Canon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
Turner Diaries sez Hi.


The Never-Ending Story waves back. Falcore will be both a luck dragon and an up armored aerial attack machine.

Fiction is fun, right?
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
I have not dismissed a thing. A riot is never a good thing, and stopping them is one of the primary reasons we engage in social contract. Those who engaged in violence inside the capitol should be held accountable, as should leftists who for months have engaged in violence against police and government buildings elsewhere. In no small part, we see so much political violence because we have been so dilatory in responding to it. We cannot let one side run amok and then gasp in horror the first time the same stuff breaks out on the other end of the spectrum. Worse, you cannot excuse leftist violence as protected speech that got out of hand, and then contrive beyond worst case interpretations when things get out of hand on the other end of the spectrum. Repressive tolerance is just repression, and the more you propose it, the worse things are going to get.

An insurrection is a bad thing, too. Fortunately, we have not had one no matter how much you stir your little cauldron of contrived grievances.



I haven't dismissed leftist violence. They should be held accountable, and they shouldn't be excused just because the extremist want to excuse Trump's not so smart insurrectionists.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
I have not dismissed a thing. A riot is never a good thing, and stopping them is one of the primary reasons we engage in social contract. Those who engaged in violence inside the capitol should be held accountable, as should leftists who for months have engaged in violence against police and government buildings elsewhere. In no small part, we see so much political violence because we have been so dilatory in responding to it. We cannot let one side run amok and then gasp in horror the first time the same stuff breaks out on the other end of the spectrum. Worse, you cannot excuse leftist violence as protected speech that got out of hand, and then contrive beyond worst case interpretations when things get out of hand on the other end of the spectrum. Repressive tolerance is just repression, and the more you propose it, the worse things are going to get.

An insurrection is a bad thing, too. Fortunately, we have not had one no matter how much you stir your little cauldron of contrived grievances.



I haven't dismissed leftist violence. They should be held accountable, and they shouldn't be excused just because the extremist want to excuse Trump's not so smart insurrectionists.

LOL can you cite me an example where, prior to the 6 Jan riots, you demanded 9/11 commissions to study Antifa and BLM violence?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rawhide said:

Porteroso said:

Rawhide said:

HuMcK said:

I wonder how much Venn-diagram overlap exists of people who refuse to call 1/6 an insurrection, but called the impeachment a "coup"?
I'm curious about the same thing from people that call the capitol building incident an insurrection but the summer insurrection a peaceful protest

Just like nobody is mixing in pro-life protests with the Capitol insurrection and calling it all insurrection, you don't need to be mixing together the 95% peaceful protests over the summer with the 5% that ended up being riots and destructive.

It is a sign of intellectual dishonesty, though I know you just parrot it from whatever news source you read/watch, which seeks to pit you against the other side by convincing you they're all bad.

Protesting is one of the most America things ever. It is true things got way out of hand, and I don't know what you call trying to burn down federal courthouses.

But if the stated goal was to protest inequality, that's simply different from stating that you want to throw out the Presidential vote, hang the Vice President, and install a dictator.

That's not saying both were equally destructive, but words have meaning, and one type of riot fits the description of insurrection. The other is more like adults throwing screaming tantrums, throwing things across the room, stealing mommy's money out of her purse to get back at her.
Quite the mental gymnastics their cupcake. I give you a 9 for style but a 1 for execution.

These "protests" took over city blocks in attempt to overthrow the local gov't and create a new country. Calling for the defunding of police department (gov't authority) setting fires and breaking into gov't buildings, terrorizing citizens, shooting police officers and assaulting anyone that didn't agree with them.

But okay, sure.... they're just "protesting".

About 95% of the protests were peaceful, and 5% turned into riots, you're right, some prolonged sieges.

What is mental gymnastics, is lumping together the 95% peaceful protesters exercising their 1a rights, with rioters that laid siege to entire blocks and neighborhoods. Gold medal for you!
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Yes, because, and only because, he lost the election.

Besides the loss of life, the threat to elected officials, the threat to the nuclear codes, the Electoral Ballots and other sensitive information and the desecration of American democracy, it also shows the lengths he was willing to go to if he had won.





quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doc Holliday said:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
You know what is not fiction?
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
You know what is not fiction?
...the videos of CHP officers removing barricades, opening doors, and standing chatting with each other and protestors as latter filed thru the rotunda in an orderly fashion, even remaining inside of ropelines.

Yes, there are other videos showing violence. But there are also videos showing bizarre posing at desks, carrying out souveniers, etc.... No meaningful assessment of what occurred could be described as an effort to seize control of the USG.

"Remember that time we had an insurrection and all I got was this desk chair?"

asinine is an apt description of the insurrection narrative. If hand-to-hand rioting with police on government property is insurrection, then we had hundreds of instances in 2020.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Rawhide said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

quash said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

whiterock said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Rawhide said:
Except the reality is the cop you mentioned was killed at the "insurrection" actually wasn't killed. You libs keep pushing that lie hoping people will buy your BS
TexasScientist said:
There are hours of video to sho that it was an insurrection. There is video of one insurrectionist using a baton to beat a police officer, and video of another insurrectionist using brass knuckles to hit a police officer.
When the liberal mob decided to burn cities, occupy government buildings, demand that gov't authority be defunded....when they decided forrm a new "country", threaten and harm innocent Americans, kill Trump supporters, beat white people, terrorize folks eating at restaurants..... what the hell was that? If THAT wasn't an insurrection, then what happened at the capitol building was f-u-c-k-i-n-g akin to an out-of-control kegger.
Yep, some of that was insurrection. But none of that was in an attempt to change the results of an election by storming the U.S. Capitol. That is treason.
Is it treason to steal an election?
Is it treason to have the power to stop an election from being stolen, yet do nothing?
Is it treason to demonstrate inside the halls of Congress to stop what you believe to be an illegal (or even simply undesirable) act from occurring?

Think carefully before you comment, as it could undermine beloved narratives on Russia Collusion, Ukraine Impeachment, and court packing (Kavanaugh hearings).

I would advise ceasing the insurrection messaging. You are not moving needles on it because what happened manifestly does not fit the definition of the term. Doubling down only serves to incite concerns by others that you intend to engage in purges to consolidate power. (and it's not like progressives aren't sending those signals on other issues, so the context is very bad....)
Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Definition of treason
: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Go argue with the dictionary.


You are the one arguing with a dictionary. The 6 Jan riot was a riot, not a revolt against existing authority (to establish a new authority, which is the sine qua non of a revolt.)

Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.
Your reasoning fail at the third word and exists only on conjecture. There was manifestly no effort to establish a new, or even extra constitutional regime. It was an effort to ensure that existing elected officials used power they possessed in regular constitutional order to kick the certification process back to the state legislatures, as allowed by the constitution. there was no stated aim to establish anything new. The group had leader, no manifesto, no support beyond a small Facebook group, just a handful of zealots who thought they could cajole elected officials into changing their minds on certification. Had they indeed been organized by elected officials, as were the radicals who accosted well inside the personal space of GOP Senators in the halls of Congress during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the situation would not have spiraled out of control like it did.

neverTrumpers remain so wedded to the post-WWII order, the pursuit of the "open society" which is failing all around us, that they increasingly share the Democrat reflex to see fascists everywhere as a way to obscure reality for which they have no new polices, only virtue posture that they are somehow better people because of the things they oppose.

"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?

It was an attempt to force a certain outcome. The fact that it might have included some trappings of constitutional process doesn't change the nature of the thing.
Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.
And there was also the expectation of help from the military, ridiculous though it was, so "might have included" means just that...it might or it might not have.
Cajole is exactly what they thought they could do, exactly like the leftist demonstrators crowded inside the halls of Congress thought they could cajole a GOP Senator or two to vote against the confirmation of Kavanaugh - get in their face, scream, jostle them around.....shatter decorum snf physically intimidate them to break their resolve. It's a seamless comparison. To contort that into an "insurrection" is less than sophomoric reasoning. Fact is, you NEED it to be insurrection to justify your feelings about Trump, so you are asserting adolescent nonsense which does not cast a shadow on the actual meaning of the term you are using.

"Expectation of help" is not coordination with military units to seize and hold key institutions. An angry, unfunded, unarmed, leaderless Facebook group does not a cabal of coup-plotters make.

Guys, I was trained by the USG to plan and execute insurrection, debriefed clandestinely individuals involved in insurrection, and mostly used resources at my disposal to dissuade or prevent people from engaging in insurrection. Your allegations here are so laughably unserious that they betray desperation. But you are having fun, so I'll just stand aside from here and watch your diminution unfold.

Insurrections don't have to be planned. They can be spontanious. In this illconceived case, many of the insurrectionists came to DC at Trump's invitation, believing social media rumors that the uprising and disruption of the eletoral count would trigger martial law, and Trump would use the military to remain in the presidency and arrest Pelosi et al. Your attempt to dismiss what happened leading up to and on 1/6, because it doesn't fit the narrative you want for your leader is what is laughable.
I have not dismissed a thing. A riot is never a good thing, and stopping them is one of the primary reasons we engage in social contract. Those who engaged in violence inside the capitol should be held accountable, as should leftists who for months have engaged in violence against police and government buildings elsewhere. In no small part, we see so much political violence because we have been so dilatory in responding to it. We cannot let one side run amok and then gasp in horror the first time the same stuff breaks out on the other end of the spectrum. Worse, you cannot excuse leftist violence as protected speech that got out of hand, and then contrive beyond worst case interpretations when things get out of hand on the other end of the spectrum. Repressive tolerance is just repression, and the more you propose it, the worse things are going to get.

An insurrection is a bad thing, too. Fortunately, we have not had one no matter how much you stir your little cauldron of contrived grievances.



I haven't dismissed leftist violence. They should be held accountable, and they shouldn't be excused just because the extremist want to excuse Trump's not so smart insurrectionists.

LOL can you cite me an example where, prior to the 6 Jan riots, you demanded 9/11 commissions to study Antifa and BLM violence?
False equivalency.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Count on TS to duck any facts which don't fit his narrative.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

quash said:

Doc Holliday said:

The insurrection narrative is asinine.

It would take an army of tens of thousands to actually steal power away.

Posters here want people to think it's the beginning of handmaids tale.
You know what is not fiction?
...the videos of CHP officers removing barricades, opening doors, and standing chatting with each other and protestors as latter filed thru the rotunda in an orderly fashion, even remaining inside of ropelines.

Yes, there are other videos showing violence. But there are also videos showing bizarre posing at desks, carrying out souveniers, etc.... No meaningful assessment of what occurred could be described as an effort to seize control of the USG.

"Remember that time we had an insurrection and all I got was this desk chair?"

asinine is an apt description of the insurrection narrative. If hand-to-hand rioting with police on government property is insurrection, then we had hundreds of instances in 2020.
This from the guy who not only called Antifa a "Stage 2 Maoist insurgency" but who also, at the same time, called out sympathetic authorities for enabling it. Every night on the evening news, as you put it.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.