9/11 commissions aren't needed to study Antifa. As bad as their violence was, they were not assaults on the U.S. Capitol and the Capitol Police while Congress was in session.TexasScientist said:False equivalency.whiterock said: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?Rawhide said:TexasScientist said: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 said: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.TexasScientist said: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.whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said: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.quash said:Trappings is generous. The vote outcome was known in advance, making the intrusion's only possible motive vote change. By coercion.Sam Lowry said:"Cajole?" Did you actually write that with a straight face?whiterock said: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.Sam Lowry said:A Trump regime established by violence, and against the constitutional order, would indeed be a new authority.whiterock said: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.)TexasScientist said:Merriam Webster - Definition of insurrectionwhiterock said:Is it treason to steal an election?TexasScientist said: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.Quote: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.Quote:TexasScientist said: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
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.
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....)
: 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.
Just amazing to see how many people will ignore the bloody frickin' obvious.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
