LCDFlight wrote:

Not a Republican, but I think Biden won pretty convincingly. Not by a lot, but he won. As for people refusing to believe it, guess what. The number of Democrats who denied Trump's lawful election in Jan 2018 was probably also 70%. Have we forgotten that already? Uncomfortable memory? Meanwhile, in Jan 2002, everybody was behind Dubya in his march to war, even though his election in 2000 was honestly as sketchy as can be.

This narrative that we are living through an unprecedented situation... is false. People are saying that to get more money and power for themselves. That is what people do. Next?

I echo Newark727's comments. Also while many Democrats denied Trump's election, Hillary Clinton conceded, just in the same way while many Democrats denied George W. Bush's election, Al Gore conceded. The concession speech is part of the peaceful transition of power, it helps those who supported the losing candidate continue on and support the government.

I've read that part of the system of democracy, is in lieu of an actual battle, every so often we have a symbolic battle called an election, then we abide by the results of that election. Those who breached the capital on January 6th and those who supported them violated that social contract.

USAirKid wrote:

johns624 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It would have been acceptable IMO to kill all the terrorists who entered the building. Don't Capitol officers have bullets for exactly this purpose?! Don't we have a military to kill people who are trying to defeat the US government?

Yet, the one rioter who was killed is considered a martyr and hero by many.

Police officers have requirements on when they can and cannot use force, including deadly force. Generally, deadly force is only allowed to preserve life, not property. The use of the US military on US soil has, even more, legal and constitutional restrictions.

But they were there not just to harm the property but also harm people, elected members of the Congress. I find the whole reasoning deeply flawed. If the police cannot defend the property as well as the people of the White House, then they shouldn't be 'acting' as they can. Then you need some sort of force that does have the right to protect both properties as well as people.

If I were to take the above reasoning as shared, then I would say that the Indian Railway Police has more rights than the Police Officers, they can arrest as well as shoot those who damage Railway property. They are also supposed to look after the passengers although that is not in their mandate (unfortunately).

Name one person who's been charged with "insurrection".

The situation here is unprecidented. Never before have we had a whole political party make a concerted effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election. With a few courageous exceptions, we have seen the entire Republican give full support to Trump as he continues to perpetrate his lies and attempts to destroy our democracy. Every day we see honest election workers hounded out of their jobs and threatened with death. This won't stop until the Republicans stand up and renounce Trump's big lie. Instead, they compete with each other to see who is more loyal to Trump. This is sick.

USAirKid wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

Not a Republican, but I think Biden won pretty convincingly. Not by a lot, but he won. As for people refusing to believe it, guess what. The number of Democrats who denied Trump's lawful election in Jan 2018 was probably also 70%. Have we forgotten that already? Uncomfortable memory? Meanwhile, in Jan 2002, everybody was behind Dubya in his march to war, even though his election in 2000 was honestly as sketchy as can be.

This narrative that we are living through an unprecedented situation... is false. People are saying that to get more money and power for themselves. That is what people do. Next?

I echo Newark727's comments. Also while many Democrats denied Trump's election, Hillary Clinton conceded, just in the same way while many Democrats denied George W. Bush's election, Al Gore conceded. The concession speech is part of the peaceful transition of power, it helps those who supported the losing candidate continue on and support the government.

I've read that part of the system of democracy, is in lieu of an actual battle, every so often we have a symbolic battle called an election, then we abide by the results of that election. Those who breached the capital on January 6th and those who supported them violated that social contract.

Denying a candidate lost is a whole different world from telling everyone what a terrible person that candidate is. Look at 2016 vs. 2020. Sure, Democrats said we would resist against MAGAs but what we did not do was storm the capital, armed to the teeth, and demanding Paul Ryan be hanged if he didn't change the results. It is very easy to see the difference.

cairns wrote:

Name one person who's been charged with "insurrection".

That's actually what the 1/6 committee is looking at. But, with all the minions failing to respond to their subpoenas, that investigation is slowing.

If they are so innocent, why won't they testify under oath?

seb146 wrote:

armed to the teeth.

Huh? This statement is totally false.

USAirKid wrote:

johns624 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

It would have been acceptable IMO to kill all the terrorists who entered the building. Don't Capitol officers have bullets for exactly this purpose?! Don't we have a military to kill people who are trying to defeat the US government?

Yet, the one rioter who was killed is considered a martyr and hero by many.

Police officers have requirements on when they can and cannot use force, including deadly force. Generally, deadly force is only allowed to preserve life, not property. The use of the US military on US soil has even more legal and constitutional restrictions.

Incorrect. Try breaking into a nuclear power plant or high security military base and see what happens.

In my opinion I can’t believe people call this a terrorist attack some people compare this to 9/11 witch is in my opinion completely disrespectful.

tomaheath wrote:

In my opinion I can’t believe people call this a terrorist attack some people compare this to 9/11 witch is in my opinion completely disrespectful.

Terrorists in many peoples definition either have to be foreigners or not of the dominate skin tone, but that isn’t an actual requirement of the definition.

I recommend you grab a dictionary, this plainly fits the definition of terrorism.

USAirKid wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

In my opinion I can’t believe people call this a terrorist attack some people compare this to 9/11 witch is in my opinion completely disrespectful.

Terrorists in many peoples definition either have to be foreigners or not of the dominate skin tone, but that isn’t an actual requirement of the definition.

I recommend you grab a dictionary, this plainly fits the definition of terrorism.

Thanks. I just read the definition and like you mentioned what happened on the 6th fits that definition. What I found interesting was the BLM and Antifa are not considered a terrorist they are a movement.
I stand behind my opinion about comparing 1/6 to 9/11.

tomaheath wrote:

In my opinion I can’t believe people call this a terrorist attack some people compare this to 9/11 witch is in my opinion completely disrespectful.

Because it is terrorism according to FBI's definition. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences,
such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

armed to the teeth.

Huh? This statement is totally false.

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

armed to the teeth.

Huh? This statement is totally false.

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

Sorry but it's not a fact my friend. Take the picture in the NPR article. One guy in the foreground has pepper spray and the 25 guys behind him have nothing in their hands except the guy in the white looks like he has a phone charger. Armed to the teeth would have them all armed with at least knives if not guns. I am not saying there were people in the crowd that had weapons but your statement infers everyone in the crowd was heavily armed. Not so.

tomaheath wrote:

Thanks. I just read the definition and like you mentioned what happened on the 6th fits that definition. What I found interesting was the BLM and Antifa are not considered a terrorist they are a movement.
I stand behind my opinion about comparing 1/6 to 9/11.

Of course BLM and Anitfa are terrorists they fit the definition perfectly , as was the weather underground but since the media is on their side they get cover and are called "activists"

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Huh? This statement is totally false.

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

Sorry but it's not a fact my friend. Take the picture in the NPR article. One guy in the foreground has pepper spray and the 25 guys behind him have nothing in their hands except the guy in the white looks like he has a phone charger. Armed to the teeth would have them all armed with at least knives if not guns. I am not saying there were people in the crowd that had weapons but your statement infers everyone in the crowd was heavily armed. Not so.

tomaheath wrote:

Thanks. I just read the definition and like you mentioned what happened on the 6th fits that definition. What I found interesting was the BLM and Antifa are not considered a terrorist they are a movement.
I stand behind my opinion about comparing 1/6 to 9/11.

Of course BLM and Anitfa are terrorists they fit the definition perfectly , as was the weather underground but since the media is on their side they get cover and are called "activists"

Antifa, and BLM are not terrorist organizations at all. But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Weather Underground, was a terrorist organization. Now it is just a weather site owned by TWC

The protestors that went to DC that day, did so based on a lie. They furthered their attack based on what Trump wanted and asked for. The overthrowing of a democratic election,. That is terrorism plain and simple.





The US Captial

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

When Cites burn and people and property are attacked in the name of "protest" to further a far left agenda you qualify.

Why, exactly, are we even talking about BLM and antifa? There's no reason to bring them up but to suggest at an equivalence - "their side does it too." Factually, this claim falls apart in detail - there's no great similarity to the Capitol rioters in either movement's motives or methods. But even if it didn't, what does that accomplish? It simply legitimizes violence as a fact of American political life - "ah, we can't help it, both sides..."

That is not something we should aspire to. If we're so certain that every transgression one "side" commits must have some equivalent transgression by the other, essentially everything is already permitted and we might as well start having the pogroms now.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

armed to the teeth.

Huh? This statement is totally false.

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

Sorry, that's not "armed to the teeth". Yes, some had improvised weapons, some had blunt instruments, most had bad intentions but they weren't armed to the teeth. That almost always refers to firearms.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... he%20teeth

The most interesting thing to note is that Trump said he will go with them and then didn't go, that itself tells what it was all about. That itself throws up so many questions. Ever heard of any leader egging people on and then not taking plan in the action whether right or wrong. But then what else could be expected of Mr. Trump who lied on how much he paid for taxes (exposed) and also didn't take part in U.S. Army draft using doctored excuse. And to date, hasn't taken any responsibility for any of his actions. Don't think it would be called leadership material at all. Even Clinton was better than me at owning up to whatever he did.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

When Cites burn and people and property are attacked in the name of "protest" to further a far left agenda you qualify.

No, those were causes and protests. The attacks were done by bad actors within the groups.

Trump called for the attack on the Capitol, and did so with a lie.

Newark727 wrote:

Why, exactly, are we even talking about BLM and antifa? There's no reason to bring them up but to suggest at an equivalence - "their side does it too." Factually, this claim falls apart in detail - there's no great similarity to the Capitol rioters in either movement's motives or methods. But even if it didn't, what does that accomplish? It simply legitimizes violence as a fact of American political life - "ah, we can't help it, both sides..."

That is not something we should aspire to. If we're so certain that every transgression one "side" commits must have some equivalent transgression by the other, essentially everything is already permitted and we might as well start having the pogroms now.

It is only brought up as the enablers of Trump work to normalize and downplay the attacks on democracy that took place on Jan 6

casinterest wrote:

bad actors within the groups.

Don't forget the "outside agitators"

casinterest wrote:

Trump called for the attack on the Capitol, and did so with a lie.

No he didn't, Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful. Trump will not be charged as this is all a dog and pony show to take the electorate's attention off the mess the country is in as they stare 2010 all over again.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bad actors within the groups.

Don't forget the "outside agitators"

casinterest wrote:

Trump called for the attack on the Capitol, and did so with a lie.

No he didn't, Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful. Trump will not be charged as this is all a dog and pony show to take the electorate's attention off the mess the country is in as they stare 2010 all over again.

Why sarcastic. There is abundant evidence of outside agitators at the BLM protests, and usually Antifa is responding to actual fascists and racists.
'

As for Trump. His whole speech that day was based on a lie. He called for the attack after once again repeating his lie.

Our brightest days are before us. Our greatest achievements, still away.

I think one of our great achievements will be election security. Because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.

And again, most people would stand there at 9 o'clock in the evening and say I want to thank you very much, and they go off to some other life. But I said something's wrong here, something is really wrong, can have happened.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

And he repeats the lie again while attacking Pence.

And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution.

Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.

Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Patriotically? After lying about what had occurred. No. This many incited a riot and insurrection with his perpetual lies.

NIKV69 wrote:

Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful.

Speaking of Rudy, where's he been? For a man who never met a microphone he didn't like, he sure is quiet. I wonder if he's "feeling his age", to be delicate about it?

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

Looked up the origin of the term terrorist:

late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror. The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

art wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

Looked up the origin of the term terrorist:

late 18th century: from French terroriste, from Latin terror. The word was originally applied to supporters of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, who advocated repression and violence in pursuit of the principles of democracy and equality.

https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

So from the above Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are advocating repression and violence in pursuit of principles of democracy and equality. I am only going by what the CIA describes and holds as terrorist organizations. So wow, didn't think would see such definitions. This is definitely post-truth.

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/ ... nizations/

Just saw this, very interesting comments -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wffMhOZQqsU

Also this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v22xC09WSVc

Very much relevant to what happened and what has been happening. Especially at 38:43 it is really pinned what could the President have done and this was way before January 6

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bad actors within the groups.

Don't forget the "outside agitators"

casinterest wrote:

Trump called for the attack on the Capitol, and did so with a lie.

No he didn't, Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful. Trump will not be charged as this is all a dog and pony show to take the electorate's attention off the mess the country is in as they stare 2010 all over again.

So exposure of a blatant attempt to overturn a free and fair election is a "dog and pony show". Why do you refuse to understand that this was all caused by the Republicans spewing out blatant lies that the election was stolen? As far as you are concerned the Republican campaign of lies to overturn a free and fair election is justified. Meanwhile the campaign of lies, and plans to subvert future elections by the Republicans continues.

victrola wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bad actors within the groups.

Don't forget the "outside agitators"

casinterest wrote:

Trump called for the attack on the Capitol, and did so with a lie.

No he didn't, Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful. Trump will not be charged as this is all a dog and pony show to take the electorate's attention off the mess the country is in as they stare 2010 all over again.

So exposure of a blatant attempt to overturn a free and fair election is a "dog and pony show". Why do you refuse to understand that this was all caused by the Republicans spewing out blatant lies that the election was stolen? As far as you are concerned the Republican campaign of lies to overturn a free and fair election is justified. Meanwhile the campaign of lies, and plans to subvert future elections by the Republicans continues.

Why do you think some on here are defending a mob, many with Confederate Flags, quite a few with Nazi symbols and extolling the holocaust, some armed, who attacked, injured and killed police officers and threatened lawmakers, including GOP ones?
It is, if they were halfway honest, who THEY are, they favour 'democracy' Putin style, fix elections, lock up, drive away or just kill your opponents, which explains the extreme mental gymnastics they engage in.

They use the same mental gymnastics to explain away police shootings of unarmed, often no with remote threat, of people (as long it seems if they are not white), yet those attacking the Capitol Security, including police, get a pass, or we are told what we are seeing, like in those controversial shootings, when caught on camera, is somehow not what is happening.

The FBI know who the real domestic terrorists are, in public domain, so do the long list of crimes, from nasty hate crimes, to plots foiled.

No, the real reason for all this nonsense is that if they said what they really think, they'd be booted off for hate slurs, ironically so would I if I wrote what I really think about them.

Excellent points from GDB and I concur 100%. Sadly we're not alone. People like Trump and Orban and Bolsonaro, they certainly accomplished one thing and that was to rip the doors off the closets where tens of millions of people used to hide their true color. The color is known as "Bleach White". This false equivalence of saying that BLM and Antifa are terrorists too is a nothing but a semi-successful deflection. It takes the full power of the Bleach White "News As Entertainment" cabal to promote and sustain.

The root of those protests last year was the video-taped execution of an unarmed black man on the heels of how many thousands of others never witnessed by the public? That's very different than the root cause of Jan 6, which was a lie perpetrated by the President of the United States himself and the unconstitutional attempt at blocking, for the FIRST time in American history, the peaceful transition of power. That is the tue definition of terrorism and these pathetic attempts by posters to regurgitate the talking points they've memorized from Fox, Breitbart, the Trump Family Clown Show and their new Truth Media Twitter nonsense simply won't fly where the echoes don't bounce back in a chamber. A.net is one of those places. There are too many people here who know their history and recognize the insidious nature of white supremacy, ignorance, and bullying. It's not just another day of "tourism" at the Capitol like Republicans keep pontificating, it's terrorism.

The people that defend the Jan 6 riots talk about freedom and claim they're true patriots. They're not. Most of us know what they really are. They came out of the worst closet there is - the closet of hate, lies and racial supremacy.

Some here claim it's disrespectful to compare 1/6 with 9/11. Certainly the latter had more destruction and death, but both were shocking and world-changing events that we shouldn't forget. If we want to talk about disrespect, how about the fact that Americans attacked a building that the heroes of Flight 93 saved, as well as disrupting and delegitimizing our democratic process?

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Huh? This statement is totally false.

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

Sorry but it's not a fact my friend. Take the picture in the NPR article. One guy in the foreground has pepper spray and the 25 guys behind him have nothing in their hands except the guy in the white looks like he has a phone charger. Armed to the teeth would have them all armed with at least knives if not guns. I am not saying there were people in the crowd that had weapons but your statement infers everyone in the crowd was heavily armed. Not so.

Based on one picture you see, you managed to find your facts. Read the FBI reports. Read the filed police reports. Don't find just one picture, point to it, and tell me I am wrong. That's no how facts work. That is how opinions work.

Enemies of the U.S. namely Russia, China as well as the terrorist groups shared by the CIA would be more than happy with themselves, especially with the way the conservatives are acting. Not even one of them in their wildest dreams would have thought of entering and destroying the White House and walking away without any consequences. And the conservatives did it.

How clueless is Mr. Trump can be known from the simple thing when he came to India and had a talk wtih our Prime Minister (whom I don't like because both are cut from the same cloth) Mr. Trump asked why did India have problems with China. It had to be painfully pointed out that India and China share a border going into thousands of kilometers. He said he was going to strike a deal between India and China and afterward just kept mum.

Now I won't go into what Mr. Trump as a 'statesman' did, but even as a general person, don't we research a country before we go there, I am sure most people in A.net would do much more. The more you know about the country, its customs and whatnot, the more you are at advantage in that country.

casinterest wrote:

Antifa, and BLM are not terrorist organizations at all.

You're wrong, antifa and blm are terrorist organizations.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

When Cites burn and people and property are attacked in the name of "protest" to further a far left agenda you qualify.

That is terrorism, domestic terrorism to be exact.

pune wrote:

don't we research a country before we go there

If it would involve reading more than six words and a picture or two, then no, Trump wouldn't do any research. I bet one of his staffers had to point to India on the globe so that Trump didn't confuse it with Indiana.

ItnStln wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

But please submit your definition of Terrorism.

Criminal acts designed to scare of intimidate to further a political or religious agenda.

When Cites burn and people and property are attacked in the name of "protest" to further a far left agenda you qualify.

That is terrorism, domestic terrorism to be exact.

Where were cities attacked in the name of a protest under BLM or Antifa? I think you have been watching far too much fake news.

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Just to back up my fact

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... -they-used
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/

Sorry but it's not a fact my friend. Take the picture in the NPR article. One guy in the foreground has pepper spray and the 25 guys behind him have nothing in their hands except the guy in the white looks like he has a phone charger. Armed to the teeth would have them all armed with at least knives if not guns. I am not saying there were people in the crowd that had weapons but your statement infers everyone in the crowd was heavily armed. Not so.

Based on one picture you see, you managed to find your facts. Read the FBI reports. Read the filed police reports. Don't find just one picture, point to it, and tell me I am wrong. That's no how facts work. That is how opinions work.

I read your links. They were not "armed to the teeth". If they were, by your definition so were the rioters who were shot in Kenosha.

May this be the first of many lawsuits against the 147 disgraceful members of Congress that voted against the will of the people on Jan 6.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5890 ... unning-for

A group of 11 North Carolina voters filed a legal challenge to disqualify Rep. Madison Cawthorn from running for a second term, arguing his involvement in a rally preceding the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on Capitol Hill constitutionally bars him from waging another campaign.

Lawyers for the 11 voters filed the suit to the State Board of Elections, contending that Cawthorn’s comments in the speech shortly preceding the insurrection violate the 14th Amendment, which states in part that no person “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress ... to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.”

Discuss the topic. Off topic posts used as flamebait aren't allowed and will be removed.

✈️ atcsundevil

This is very precisely put.
What gets me is that I do not see or understand the motivation.
Why do the GOP want to remove democracy? No one gets a better life. Why do people want a country or a society with harsh gradients and inequality?
It makes everyone’s lifes unsafe and miserable.
I guess I just don’t get right wingers, wether they are thinly veiled white supremacist middle class hillbillies or the Trumps and Putins of the world, that has more money and power than they could ever use. Where is the joy in making the world miserable for the rest of us?

GDB wrote:

victrola wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Don't forget the "outside agitators" :sarcastic:




No he didn't, Rudy was the only one that said anything inciteful. Trump will not be charged as this is all a dog and pony show to take the electorate's attention off the mess the country is in as they stare 2010 all over again.

So exposure of a blatant attempt to overturn a free and fair election is a "dog and pony show". Why do you refuse to understand that this was all caused by the Republicans spewing out blatant lies that the election was stolen? As far as you are concerned the Republican campaign of lies to overturn a free and fair election is justified. Meanwhile the campaign of lies, and plans to subvert future elections by the Republicans continues.

Why do you think some on here are defending a mob, many with Confederate Flags, quite a few with Nazi symbols and extolling the holocaust, some armed, who attacked, injured and killed police officers and threatened lawmakers, including GOP ones?
It is, if they were halfway honest, who THEY are, they favour 'democracy' Putin style, fix elections, lock up, drive away or just kill your opponents, which explains the extreme mental gymnastics they engage in.

They use the same mental gymnastics to explain away police shootings of unarmed, often no with remote threat, of people (as long it seems if they are not white), yet those attacking the Capitol Security, including police, get a pass, or we are told what we are seeing, like in those controversial shootings, when caught on camera, is somehow not what is happening.

The FBI know who the real domestic terrorists are, in public domain, so do the long list of crimes, from nasty hate crimes, to plots foiled.

No, the real reason for all this nonsense is that if they said what they really think, they'd be booted off for hate slurs, ironically so would I if I wrote what I really think about them.

M564038 wrote:

This is very precisely put.
What gets me is that I do not see or understand the motivation.
Why do the GOP want to remove democracy? No one gets a better life. Why do people want a country or a society with harsh gradients and inequality?
It makes everyone’s lifes unsafe and miserable.
I guess I just don’t get right wingers, wether they are thinly veiled white supremacist middle class hillbillies or the Trumps and Putins of the world, that has more money and power than they could ever use. Where is the joy in making the world miserable for the rest of us?

"Better to rule in hell, than serve in heaven." The American right has simply gotten so wrapped up in the necessity of winning, in the thrill of beating the other guy and having power, that they've essentially abandoned most further ideological aspirations so long as they get to keep doing it. They're fiscal conservatives until they can use tax cuts as a huge vote-buying scheme, anti-regulation until they can harass abortion seeking women with red tape, pro-vaccination until mass vaccination became a Democratic party objective, pro-free speech until someone uses it to question their narrative of history - the list goes on. It's why Trump was able to set himself up at the top of the pyramid so easily.

seb146 wrote:

cairns wrote:

Name one person who's been charged with "insurrection".

That's actually what the 1/6 committee is looking at. But, with all the minions failing to respond to their subpoenas, that investigation is slowing.

If they are so innocent, why won't they testify under oath?

Because impeachments the Speaker of the House previously pursued were not exactly in keeping with the standards of practice and jurisprudence observed heretofore?

FlapOperator wrote:

Because impeachments the Speaker of the House previously pursued were not exactly in keeping with the standards of practice and jurisprudence observed heretofore?

Trump and his allies have been complaining of horribly biased and partisan investigations against him continuously since before he even took office. I'm not sure now's the time to start believing them. Remember when the judge in the Trump U lawsuit couldn't give a fair verdict because he had a Hispanic name?

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Sorry but it's not a fact my friend. Take the picture in the NPR article. One guy in the foreground has pepper spray and the 25 guys behind him have nothing in their hands except the guy in the white looks like he has a phone charger. Armed to the teeth would have them all armed with at least knives if not guns. I am not saying there were people in the crowd that had weapons but your statement infers everyone in the crowd was heavily armed. Not so.

Based on one picture you see, you managed to find your facts. Read the FBI reports. Read the filed police reports. Don't find just one picture, point to it, and tell me I am wrong. That's no how facts work. That is how opinions work.

I read your links. They were not "armed to the teeth". If they were, by your definition so were the rioters who were shot in Kenosha.

Guns were found on the domestic terrorists on 1/6.

And let's not forget they built a gallows to hand Pelosi and Pence. They were going to murder elected officials to get their way. To install their king.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Based on one picture you see, you managed to find your facts. Read the FBI reports. Read the filed police reports. Don't find just one picture, point to it, and tell me I am wrong. That's no how facts work. That is how opinions work.

I read your links. They were not "armed to the teeth". If they were, by your definition so were the rioters who were shot in Kenosha.

Guns were found on the domestic terrorists on 1/6.

And let's not forget they built a gallows to hand Pelosi and Pence. They were going to murder elected officials to get their way. To install their king.

My point is--they were not "armed to the teeth". A few had guns, probably about the same percentage as the rioters in Kenosha. The other point is---you don't need a gun to be dangerous and a threat.

tomaheath wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

tomaheath wrote:

In my opinion I can’t believe people call this a terrorist attack some people compare this to 9/11 witch is in my opinion completely disrespectful.

Terrorists in many peoples definition either have to be foreigners or not of the dominate skin tone, but that isn’t an actual requirement of the definition.

I recommend you grab a dictionary, this plainly fits the definition of terrorism.

Thanks. I just read the definition and like you mentioned what happened on the 6th fits that definition. What I found interesting was the BLM and Antifa are not considered a terrorist they are a movement.
I stand behind my opinion about comparing 1/6 to 9/11.

The question is, when does someone stop being a protester and become a terrorist?

1/6 started out as a protest, and those protesters who entered the capital building without permission became terrorists. I don't know what percentage of the people who showed up on Washington DC on 1/6 to protest entered the capital building, but a significant large number of people entered the capital building without permission.

At most BLM protests, those protesters stay outside of buildings, yes some do enter random businesses and loot, but the vast majority don't illegally enter buildings. Additionally, it is a different scale completely, entering a random business and sealing goods, than entering the capital of the United States and threatening to kill lawmakers. There also instances of BLM protesters forming human chains in front of businesses to prevent them from being looted.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Based on one picture you see, you managed to find your facts. Read the FBI reports. Read the filed police reports. Don't find just one picture, point to it, and tell me I am wrong. That's no how facts work. That is how opinions work.

I read your links. They were not "armed to the teeth". If they were, by your definition so were the rioters who were shot in Kenosha.

Guns were found on the domestic terrorists on 1/6.

And let's not forget they built a gallows to hand Pelosi and Pence. They were going to murder elected officials to get their way. To install their king.

I am not defending what happened on January 6th by any means, but your statement about weapons is a little bit of mis/disinformation. You say "guns were found on the domestic terrorist on 1/6". I am not exactly sure what that is referring to, but there were no guns found by the FBI:

"The claim: Jill Sanborn, assistant director of the FBI’s counterterrorism division, told a Senate committee that the FBI did not recover any guns at the Jan. 6 Capitol riot"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 578286001/

There were three (I think that's correct) people charged with weapons offenses, but I don't think any of them were in the Capitol. The dumbasses in the Capitol had improvised weapons like bats and rebar, but when you say "armed to the teeth" you are evoking thoughts of people storming the capital with all kinds of guns. That simply didn't happen.

Nothing so new under the sun;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... empt-1930s

A Republic of Oligarchs or Democracy? In the minds of many, including some on here, the former, not the latter, if that is their side does not win and the demographic trend is not in their favour.